JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”), challenge is to the judgment and order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby the claim for compensation filed by the appellant/claimant was dismissed.

2. Background facts:-

The deceased Praful s/o Narendra Jagtap was son of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that on 26.11.2018 her son after purchasing the journey ticket for Chandur Railway to Mumbai boarded train No.8030 UP i.e. Shalimar Express in presence of his friend. When the train started to run, the deceased accidentally fell down and died on the spot at Pole No.691/23 at Chandur Railway Station. It is stated that deceased died in untoward incident. He was travelling by the said train as a bona fide passenger with valid journey ticket from Chandur Railway to Mumbai. The appellant, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, due to death of her son in untoward incident

3. Respondent-railway filed written statement and opposed the claim. In sum and substance, the respondent has denied the material facts. It is denied that deceased had purchased railway ticket and boarded the train as bona fide passenger. There was no eye witness to the incident. There is no witness to rule out the possibility of deceased sustaining self inflicted injury due to his negligent act. As per memo issued by the Station Superintendent, Chandur Railway Station the deceased was cut by Train No.18030 UP Shalimar Express. The case in question is not covered in the definition of untoward incident. The deceased himself was responsible for the incident. The railway was not responsible for death of the deceased.

4. The appellant-mother of the deceased examined herself as a sole witness. The respondent-railway did not examine any witness. Railway Claims Tribunal on consideration of the material on record dismissed the claim. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order has come before this Court.

5. I have heard Shri R.G. Bagul, learned Advocate for the appellant and Smt Neeraja Chaubey, learned Advocate for the respondent. Perused the record and proceedings.

6. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that there is ample evidence on record to prove that deceased died in untoward incident and therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the compensation on account of death of her son. Learned Advocate further submitted that there is ample evidence to substantiate the claim of the appellant that deceased was bona fide passenger inasmuch as he was travelling with a valid ticket. Learned Advocate submitted that mere absence of ticket with injured or deceased is not sufficient to reject the claim of the appellant on the ground that deceased was not bona fide passenger. Learned Advocate pointed out that the appellant has filed the affidavit and narrated in detail the circumstances which led to death of the deceased. Learned Advocate submitted that on the basis of the relevant facts stated in the affidavit the appellant has discharged her initial onus and established that deceased was bona fide passenger travelling with ticket. In order to seek support to this submission learned Advocate has placed heavy reliance on the decision in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572. Learned Advocate submitted that after discharge of the onus on the basis of the facts stated in the affidavit respondent was supposed to adduce the evidence and disprove the facts stated in the affidavit filed by the appellant. Learned Advocate submitted that in the absence of evidence the claim filed by the appellant deserves acceptance. The respondent has not adduced evidence to disprove that the deceased was not bona fide passenger. Learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon a decision in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 642.

7. Smt. Neeraja Chaubey, learned Advo