Rajesh Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-railway.

2. The instant appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 24.09.2012 passed in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2009/0044 by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench wherein claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant herein has been rejected.

3. The claim petition has been filed by the claimant/appellant herein namely Savila Khatun stating therein that on 21.05.2009, her husband Mubarak Ansari was going to Piska from his residence at Itki by 4RL Lohardaga-Ranchi Passenger with a valid ticket. Due to crowd in the train, when he was ready to get down at Piska Railway Station, someone pushed him due to which he fell down from the train on the railway track and his body was completely smashed and died on the spot.

3. In support of her claim, the claimant had submitted fardbayan of Abbas Ansari, Inquest Report, I Card of Savila Khatun, I Card of Mubarak Ansari & Ration Card.

4. The Claim Tribunal has framed three issued, which reads as under:-

"1 Whether the Mubarak Ansari s/o Ilahi Abba was a bona fide passenger as alleged?

2. Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989 occurred to the Mubarak Ansari s/o Ilahi Abba while travelling in Train No. 4 RL Lohardaga-Ranchi Passenger on 21.05.2009 at Piska Rly. Station?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any?"

5. So far as issue No. 1 regarding bona fide passenger is concerned, Railway Claim Tribunal has returned the finding that as no ticket was found from the body of the deceased, as such, he was not a bona fide passenger.

6. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the inquest report i.e. Ext-R-5. As per the inquest report, the entire body was smashed and nothing has been recovered from the body of the deceased.

7. Only on the reason of non-production of ticket, the claim of the claimant/appellant has been refused by holding that deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

8. Nobody can enter into the railway station or into the train without having a valid ticket as at all entry points, railway has deputed its staffs to check authorized/unauthorized person and even in train, Travelling Ticket Examiner (in short TTE) has been employed to check such person, who does not possess a valid ticket.

9. Thus, if a person is travelling by a train, it is presumed that he/she is travelling with a valid ticket and onus lies upon the railway authority to prove that such person is not having a valid ticket and as such, he/she is not a bona fide passenger. Railway Authority has failed to discharge his duty. Claim Tribunal has proceeded wrongly by considering that onus lies upon the claimant.

10. In view of the above discussion, findings recorded by the Claim Tribunal so far as issue No. 1 is concerned is reversed and it is held that deceased was a bona fide passenger.

11. So far as issue No. 2 is concerned, it appears that the same has been negated on the ground that deceased was trying to get down from the moving train and came under the train.

12. It is relevant to consider herein that in this part of the country, due to overcrowding in train and also due to short duration of stoppage of train at the railway station, the passengers are in hurry to get down from the train because of the fact that when train comes to the railway station, there are many passengers, i.e. some passengers, who are on the train, are in hurry to get down from the train and some passengers are in hurry to board the train.

13. It is also important to take judicial note of the fact that at many stations, length of platform is short in comparison with the length of train, resulting general bogie of the train not getting the platform and passengers have to take risk to board/alight as they have no option. At many stations, alignment of platform and bogie of the train is also not proper and many times, it happens that passen