Ramesh Chand Malviya, J. – Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 01.04.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench in Claim Application No. OA-00072 of 2009 by which the claim for compensation of the claimants before the Railway Tribunal for the death of claimant’s husband and father in an untoward incidence on the railway track has been rejected.

3. That the brief facts leading to this appeal is that on 21.12.2008, the deceased Chhotan Singh left from his house in Mokama to Barh by train carrying Ticket No. 52054092 and while returning on same day from Barh to Mokama he was carrying Ticket No. 52054093. In his journey from Barh to Mokama, it was claimed by the claimants that he fell down from train on the rail track near Shivnar Railway Halt and got serious injuries and died there on the rail track itself due to the said injuries. When the deceased did not return back at home, his family members started searching for him. They heard about a dead body being found on the railway tracks and went to the spot and there identified the deceased as Chhotan Singh. On the basis of information, GRPF, Mokama came and both the aforesaid tickets were recovered from pocket of the deceased. The GRPF registered UD Case no. 41 of 2008 on 22.12.2008, prepared Inquest Report and on written request of one Sanjay Kumar who claimed to be son-in-law of the said deceased Chhotan Singh, the dead body of Chhotan Singh was handed over to Sanjay Kumar for last rites after Post Mortem.

4. On the basis of Inquest Report, details of aforesaid tickets, written application of Sanjay Kumar and Post Mortem Report, all of which disclosed that the deceased Chhotan Singh allegedly died in train accident, the GRPF, Mokama after investigation, submitted Final Report in UD Case no. 41 of 2008 on 22.12.2008 itself allegedly stating that the death of Chhotan Singh happened in a train accident.

5. The applicants/claimants-appellants being widow, son & minor daughter (now become major) of the deceased Chhotan Singh respectively filed an application under Section 125 of the Railway Act claiming compensation under Sections 124/124-A of the Railway Act read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act before the learned Patna Bench of Railway Claim Tribunal on 06.04.2009, which was registered on 09.04.2009 as Case No. OA 00072 of 2009 claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs Rupees) on account of death of said Chhotan Singh in Untoward Incidents. They submitted documentary evidence contained in Ann-series along with Death Certificate of deceased dated 03.02.2009, list of Family certificate dated 12.02.2009, Aadhar Card, Photo, etc. Apart from documentary evidence aforesaid contained in Ann- 1 series & 2 series, which were duly exhibited by and before the Learned Railway Claim Tribunal as Ann- A/1 to A/9, appellant no. 1 adduced her oral evidence on 20.04.2015 in support of the aforesaid claim aforesaid.

6. The tribunal on the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties and the materials on record rejected the claim case on the grounds that the death of the deceased occurred by reason of being run over by the train and not any “un-towards accidents” as defined under Section 123 of the Railway Act. The tribunal further held that the tickets found on the body of the deceased were not valid tickets and they did not prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who would be entitled to claim compensation from the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the inquest report, UD case and all documents proved that the deceased died by falling from the train in an un-towards accident. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 [: 2018 (3) BLJ 72 (SC)] wherein the Apex Court held that onus of proof that a claimant is a bonafide passenger can shift on the Railways if an affidavit of relevant facts is f