The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of railway accidents, the burden lies on the railway authorities to prove that the passenger was not bona fide, and claimants are entitled to compensation in accordance with the prevailing rules.

1. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal arises out of the claim application being Case No.OA(IIU)RNC/2010/0181, filed by Pramila Devi, whose husband has died on 21.11.2006 by Train No.80DN, Baijnath Dham Asansol Passenger, as he fell down from the train.

3. Learned Claim Tribunal has framed following issues:-

1. Did the death of Dindayal Barnwal occur due to fall caused by heavily crowded co-passengers in the compartment?

2. Was he a passenger by 82 DN?

3. Who are the dependents of the deceased?

4. Reliefs & costs.

4. From the perusal of the evidence, it is evident that the husband of the claimant, deceased Dindayal Barnwal, has died due to fall from the train while travelling. Claim has been rejected only on the ground that how the deceased fell down from the train has not been proved and as such, he cannot be covered under the definition of “Untoward Incident”.

5. At this stage, it is relevant to consider that it is settled law that once an accident took place with the passenger while travelling in a train due to fall from the train or otherwise, Railway has to prove the incident as to whether the incident was due to negligence on the part of passenger.

6. In this regard following judgments have been passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Kerla High Court, explaining the situations:

1. AIR 2004 Karnataka 215 (Smt. Leelavathamma vrs. the Union of India) wherein it was clearly held by their Lordships in para-6 and 7 as under:-

“6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. The first and the foremost question that falls for consideration is whether the deceased was a passenger on Train No.-284-A between Bhadravathi and Bangalore. The Tribunal has answered that question in the negative primarily because the appellant had not been able to produce the ticket purchased by the deceased at the time he boarded the train at Bhadravathi. We find it difficult to subscribe to that view. We say so for two precise reasons. The first is that the deceased was a passenger on the train in question even according to the version of the respondent. In the objections filed on behalf of the respondent, the specific case that was set up by the respondent was that the deceased had boarded Train No.284-A (Fast Passenger) at 23.20 hours at Bhadrawathin Railway Station. The objections go on to state that instead of occupying a seat inside the compartment, the deceased had chosen to travel on the foot board in a state of intoxication. The objections allege that since the deceased was in a state of intoxication, he fell down from the train between Bhadrawathi and Tarikere. It is, therefore, nobody's case that the deceased was not on board of the train at the time of the accident. The admitted case of both the parties is that the deceased was travelling by Train No. 284-A between Bhadravathi and Bangalore on the fateful night and that he had fallen off somewhere between Bhadravathi and Tarikere. Inasmuch as the Tribunal made out a case which neither party had set up, it committed a palpable error.

7. The second and the only other aspect which the Tribunal had adverted to in support of its view was that the appellant had not produced the ticket which the deceased is alleged to have purchased. The non-production of the ticket is not in dispute. That does not, however, tantamount to saying that the deceased was a ticket less traveller. The respondent had also not set up any such case in the objections filed by it. If the respondent's case was that the deceased was travelling without a ticket and was not, therefore, a bona fide passenger, there was nothing which prevented it from setting up that case. The absence of any plea in the objections that the deceased was ticketless traveller would, therefore, disentitle the respondent from asserting any such defence at the hearing. That apart just because the train ticket had not been produced could not necessarily lead to the