1. Challenging the order passed in OA (II-U) 337 of 2014 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 S.Balachandar.

3. According to the appellants, the deceased viz., S.Balachandar, was a resident of Pozhichalur near Chennai and he was a Cooli worker and used to travel by EMU train to go for his coolie job. On 07.03.2014, the deceased informed his wife that he was going for his job and left the house. Subsequently, the appellants came to know from the Tambaram Railway Police that the deceased prior to 08.00 a.m. of 08.03.2014 while travelling in any one of the EMU train between Pallavaram and Chromepet Railway Stations, due to heavy rush, speed, jerk and jolt of the train, accidentally fell down from the running train and run over by the train wheels and suffered grievous injuries and died at the place of occurrence. According to the appellants, it was an untoward incident. A case was registered by the Pallavaram Railway Police, in Crime No.36 of 2015 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. The train ticket purchased by the deceased was lost in the course of the accident, therefore, the same was not produced before the Tribunal.

4. The respondent filed their reply along with DRM report wherein they have stated that the deceased might have committed suicide and that he was not a bona fide passenger and he was not having any ticket or travel authority at the time of the incident.

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.S.Muthupandiarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M.T. Arunan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

8. Mr.S.Muthupandiarajan, 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 Chinnappa Reddy, J. in para 4 of the Report has made the following observations:

The principles of statutory construction are well settl