Challenging the order passed in OA (II-U) 13 of 2015 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, the claimants have filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The appellants have filed the claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) for the death of Vedapparaj.

3. According to the appellants, the deceased viz., Vedapparaj, was a resident of Olaiyur Village in Ariyhalur District and was studying in II year B.E. course in Government Engineering College at Bodinayakanur. He used to travel from Madurai to Virudhachalam by train. In order to go to his native place, on 09.08.2014, in the morning, he informed his room-mates and left for Madurai for onward journey by train to Virudhachalam. The appellants came to know from the Virudhachalam Railway Police that the deceased, prior to 1500 hours on 10.08.2014, while travelling in any one of the train between Pennadam and Echangadu Railway Stations, due to rush, speed and jolt of the train, accidentally fell down from the running train and suffered grievous head injury and died at the place of occurrence. According to the appellants, it was an untoward incident and the death was noticed by the duty key-man on 10.08.2014 at about 1500 hours and reported for action. A case was registered by the Virudhachalam Railway Police, in Crime No.140 of 2014 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. The second class ticket purchased by the deceased for his travel from Madurai to Virudhachalam was lost during the course of the accident and hence, the same was not produced before the Tribunal.

4. The respondent filed their reply along with DRM report wherein they have stated that the incident had occurred due to the carelessness of not following the statutory warning that the passenger should not stand on the doorways. However, to support the said contention, the respondent have not examined any witness.

5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, A.W.1 was examined and 6 documents, Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. However, there was no oral and documentary evidence on the side of the respondent.

6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the case of both the parties, dismissed the claim petition finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger for the reason that he was not possessing the train ticket.

7. Heard Mr. T.Raja Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. E.Vijay Anand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

8. 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 thi