Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Railway administration appeals against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal granting compensation to the parents of Radhakrishna Pillai (for short, 'Pillai'), who died as a result of an incident on 11.11.2004. The Tribunal found that while travelling from Calicut to Kannur in Train No.619, he fell when that running train jerked violently, resulting in the door of the compartment swinging and smashing him down and that it was an "untoward incident" as defined in the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, the "Railways Act"), for which compensation is payable under Section 124A of that Act. The Tribunal repelled Railways' plea that he was not a 'bona fide' passenger.

2. The ground of the Railways in this appeal is confined to the plea that Pillai cannot be held to be a 'bona fide' passenger as his passenger ticket was not produced by the claimants, or recovered from his body.

3. Pillai was injured on 11.11.2004. He was removed to the hospital, from where he died on 17.11.2014. His mother deposed as P.W.1 that her son had purchased a ticket from Calicut Railway Station. That was not recovered from his body. There is nothing on record to show that the mother was accompanying her son. Obviously, PW1's statement that her son had purchased ticket from Calicut Railway Station is a presumptive one, going by the common course of human conduct. Deceased Pillai was having some business. His mother's testimony was that he was travelling in connection with his business. In the common course of human conduct, his mother would never have had any reason to presume or believe that he would have travelled without a valid ticket. Going by the facts, we do not see any premise to presume that he would have travelled without a valid ticket. As rightly noted by the Tribunal, the Railways have security personnel who would and could arrest unauthorized travellers. There are also Ticket Examiners. In the common course of human conduct, we cannot but presume that Pillai was a passenger travelling under a valid ticket. There is nothing on record to the contrary. Following the incident, Pillai was hospitalised from 11.11.2004, till he died on 17.11.2004. These and the attendant circumstances persuade us to hold that it would be wholly unreasonable, in the realm of appreciation of evidence, to find that the deceased was travelling without a valid journey ticket.

4. The Tribunal is authorised to decide on claims of compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act. That is a piece of social welfare legislation intended to provide benefit by way of succor, to the victims of; and dependents of passengers who happened to be killed as a result of; "untoward incident". That provision is made "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law".

5. The power of the Tribunal to enquire and determine claims against a railway administration for compensation for death or injury to passengers occurring as a result of railway accidents, was included in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, for short, "Tribunal Act", with effect from 1.8.1994, the date of introduction of Section 124A and the definition of "untoward incident" in Section 123(c) in the Railways Act.

6. The Tribunal, going by Section 18 of the Tribunal Act, shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of that Act and of any rules, it has the power to regulate its own procedure. Sub-section 2 of Section 18 provides, inter alia, that every application shall be decided on perusal of documents, written representations and affidavits and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced. Section 28 of the Tribunal Act provides that the provisions of that Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law othe