The burden of proving that the victim is not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railways, and the non-production of the Railway ticket is not fatal to the claimants' case.

1. Challenging the order passed in OA (II-U) 4 of 2015 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, the claimants have filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. According to the appellants, the deceased viz., M.Sathishkumar, was working as a Coolie with Private Contractors at Chennai and used to travel from Ambattur to Chennai by purchasing a second class ticket for his contract work. Further, according to the appellants, he used to return in the evening or night after completing his work at Chennai. On 01.09.2013, in the morning, he left for his work in Chennai and did not return in the night. The 1st appellant came to know from the police authorities that on 01.09.2013 prior to 09.15 hours while he was travelling from Ambattur to Chennai and when the train was proceeding between Pattravakkam and Korattur Railway Stations, he accidentally fell down from the running train, suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. A case was registered by the Perambur Railway Police, in Crime No.578 of 2013 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. The inquest was conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Perambur and the Panchayatras have unanimously held that the deceased had died due to the injuries suffered in the accidental fall from the train. In the course of the accident, train ticket was lost, therefore, it could not be produced before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the claimants filed their claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ (Rupees four lakhs only) for the death of M.Sathishkumar.

3. In the reply, the respondent pleaded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the alleged death could have been caused due to some other reason other than the fall from the running train.

4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, the 1st appellant was examined as A.W.1 and 6 documents, Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. The report of the Divisional Railway Manager was produced along with the counter of the respondent.

5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the case of both the parties, dismissed the claim petition stating that the claimants have not produced the train ticket and established that the victim was a bona fide passenger.

6. Heard Mr.T.Raja Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Dr.S.R.Sundaram, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Mr.T.Raja Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submitted that non-production of the train ticket is not fatal to the case of the claimants and that the burden of proof lies on the respondent-Railway to establish that the victim was not a bona fide passenger. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is whether the non-production of the Railway ticket is fatal to the case of the claimants or not. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgements:-

(i) 2008 (4)MLJ 323 [Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar and others], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph Nos. 12 to 15 held as follows:-

"12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647(para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13), S. M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27(para 12) etc. 13. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others 1995(6) SCC 326 this Court observed:

"In this connection, we may usefully turn to the decision of this Court in Workmen vs. American Express International Banking Corporation wherein Ch