The burden of proof lies on the railway administration to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it should be presumed that the passenger was traveling with a valid ticket.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in Application No. OA 9800130 whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the prayer of the appellant to pay her Rs. 4 lacs on account of the death of her husband Md. Anwar @ Bhola Mandal in accidental call from a train.

2. The case of the appellant is that she is wife of Late Md. Anwar @ Bhola Mandal. On 24.2.1998 her husband was travelling from Sitarampur to Kumardhubi in Train No. 3029-Up Coal Field Express as a bona fide passenger with proper ticket. At Kumardhubi Railway Station he fell down from the train and was seriously injured and subsequently died. The appellant being a dependent filed an application under Sec. 125 of the Railways Act for compensation.

3. The respondent filed written statement opposing . the prayer and stating therein, as it appears from the impugned. judgment, that the applicant is to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident within the meaning of Sec. 123(c) of the Act.

4. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for determination:

(i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger as alleged?

(ii) Whether the incident covered under Sec. 123(c) read with Sec. 124-A of the Railways Act?

(iii) Relief to what extent.

5. Learned Tribunal after going through the evidence adduced held that the deceased was died in accidental fall covered within the meaning of Sec. 123(c) of the Act. It, however, further held that the appellant has failed to prove that the deceased at the time of accident was a bona fide passenger. Accordingly, it dismissed the application.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the burden was on the respondent to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and hence, even if the appellant has not proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the Tribunal should have allowed the compensation.

7. In support of his submission he has relied on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Hari Narain Gupta & Ors., AIR 2007 Rajasthan 38, wherein it has been decided that in this regard the burden of proof lies on the railway administration and not on the claimants.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the claimant has to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in train and as she has failed to do so, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim.

9. It appears from the impugned judgment that in this case one Md. Anwar, who is the brother of the appellant, has stated that the deceased had come to his house and after dropping him at the Railway Station he purchased Ticket No. 44116 at Sitarampur Railway Station and gave it to the deceased for his journey from Sitarampur Railway Station to Kumardhubi, but as the ticket number was not mentioned in the application filed by the appellant, the affidavit of Md. Anwar containing the above statement was filed after four years of filing of the application, the Tribunal held that it was an afterthought and as no ticket was received from the possession of the deceased during inquest and post mortem, it further held that the appellant has failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

10. It is really very difficult for a dependent in the case of death of a passenger to prove, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, specially when the deceased was travelling without reservation or without any other person with him. It is extremely difficult to mention ticket number in the application for claim because the common experience is that hardly any passenger needs record the ticket number. In accidental fall the ticket purchased by the passenger may also go missing. Therefore, in such cases, if the passenger has not been found ticketless by the checking staff of the Railways, it has to be presumed that the passenger is a bona fide p