The main legal point established is the entitlement of compensation to bona fide passengers involved in untoward incidents, emphasizing the burden of proof, liberal interpretation of beneficial statutes, and the railway administration's obligation to discharge its burden of proof.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants who are the original claimants have challenged the judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in OA(IIu)/NGP/2015/0213, dated 28/04/2017 by which the claims of the claimants is rejected by the Tribunal.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as under:

On 06/12/2014, the deceased Sk. Hafeez s/o Sk. Ibrahim along with his elder sister and brother came to Akola Railway Station in order to drop his sister to her at Malkapur and accordingly, the brother of the deceased purchased two railway tickets from Akola to Malkapur for the deceased and his sister. The tickets were handed over to his sister. The deceased and his sister both boarded in Prerna Express in two different bogies, due to the crowd in the train. The deceased was standing near the door of the compartment of the train, whereas his sister was in a different bogie. While departing the train at Akola Railway Station, there was a sudden jerk to the train, due to which the deceased fell down from the said running train near KM No.583/11-13 and died on the spot. The sister of the deceased after getting down at Malkapur Railway Station had handed over the ticket to the Ticket Collector at Malkapur. As per the contention of the claimants, who are the parents that the death of the deceased is caused in an untoward incident when he was travelling by train as a bonafide passenger, therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation.

3. In response to the notice, the Railway Administration resisted the claim, on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the death of the deceased is caused due to his own negligence, therefore, the Railway Administration is not liable to pay compensation.

4. To substantiate the contention, the claimants Sk. Ibrahim s/o Sk. Chottu adduced his evidence and narrated about the occurrence of the incident. Besides his oral evidence, he placed reliance on D.R.M. Report Exhibit A-27, Report of the Railway Exhibit A-31, Marg Report, Exhibit A-32, Spot Panchanama Exhibit No. A-34 and Inquest Panchanama Exhibit A-37.

5. To rebut the evidence of the claimants, the railway administration has also examined Shaikh Azim s/o Shaikh Lal, Trackman Unit No.06, Akola Railway Station, and also relied upon the D.R.M. report. The Railway Claims Tribunal appreciated the evidence of claimants as well as the respondent railway and observed that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Moreover, the death of the deceased is caused due to his own negligence. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation and rejected the claim.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants, on the ground that even the investigation papers of the Railway Administration show that the deceased was travelling by the said train, and fell down from the train and succumbed to the death. The Railway Administration has not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The mere absence of the ticket is not sufficient to hold that deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

7. Heard learned counsel Mr R.G. Bagul for the appellants. He reiterated the said contention and submitted that even the report filed by the Railway shows that, the death of the deceased is caused as he fell down from the running train, sustained injuries, and died on the spot. The mere absence of the ticket is not sufficient to hold that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in the case of Union of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 and Union of India Vs Rina Devi reported in 2018 (3) T.A.C. 26.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel Ms N.G. Chaubey for the respondent submitted that Railway Ticket was not fou