JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the original applicant, challenging the judgment and award passed in Claim Application No. OA(IIU)/NGP/2014/0254, passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, on 10-11-2017, whereby the claim for compensation filed by the present appellant came to be dismissed. [Parties are referred as per their nomenclature before the Tribunal.]

2. Present appellant/original applicant had claimed that he is the legal heir of one Malanbai Tukaram Mudkhede. Applicant had filed the petition for compensation on account of death of Malanbai in an untoward incident alleged to have occurred on 03- 05-2014. Deceased had boarded unknown train in the evening hours from Nanded Railway Station for travelling up to Mukhed. When the train was passing Mugat Railway Station, she accidentally fell down due to sudden jerk in the intervening night of 03-05-2014 to 04-05-2014. She sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the applicant had claimed compensation.

3. The respondent - railway contested the claim. It was contended that incident narrated in the application can not be considered as 'untoward incident' defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. It was stated that no such incident causing death of Malanbai, within the meaning of Section 124(a) of the Railways Act had taken place and, therefore, the claim application itself is not maintainable. Other averments in the application have been denied. It was specifically contended that the applicant is not entitled to get any amount of compensation.

4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased Malanbai was not bona fide passenger of the train on the relevant day. So also, it was held that applicant has failed to prove that Malanbai expired in an untoward incident. Therefore, as aforesaid, the claim application was dismissed. Hence, present appeal.

5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.S. Agrawal appearing for the applicant. So also, heard learned Advocate Mr D.V. Soman appearing for the respondent.

6. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant, that the applicant himself has stated that he had left Malanbai to Nanded station and she had purchased ticket for boarding train. Therefore, she was bona fide passenger. In fact, when she had entered the railway station platform, then she was supposed to take ticket and the railway authorities had not detected her as a passenger travelling without ticket. Therefore, an inference can be drawn that she was travelling with valid ticket. Merely because the ticket was not found on the dead body of Malanbai, will not infer that she had no ticket. Unnecessarily, importance has been given to the report of DRM. In order to support his submissions, learned Advocate for applicant has relied on the decision in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & others, (2009) Supp AIR SC 383, wherein it has been held that "The expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression." Further, in Union of India Vs. Bimala wd/o. Pintho Tudu & others, (2012) 3 MhLJ 883, this High Court, Bench at Nagpur, has held that "Fact that the deceased was not detected as passenger travelling without ticket, would give rise to an inference that he was travelling with valid ticket. Unless the negative is proved or there is evidence, may be, circumstantial in nature, that the deceased was not holding valid ticket, it would be desirable, to presume that deceased was authorised passenger." Further, in Union of India Vs. Nandabai w/o. Sheshrao Dangat & others,