JUDGMENT :

V.Sujatha, J.

Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short 'the learned Tribunal') in O.AII/(U)/180/2013, dated 23.04.2021 the applicants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the cases are as follows:

a) The deceased was working as a daily wage labourer. On 07.09.2012, in the morning, he left his residence to go to Srungavarapukota for masonry work. He went to Araku Railway Station and purchased a journey ticket bearing No.08354 from Araku to Srungavarapukota. While travelling in Train No.58502 Passenger, he accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at KM No.101/13-101/12 between Araku and Similiguda Railway Stations, sustained injuries and died on the spot.

b) As per Column No.7 of the claim application, the journey ticket was kept with the GRP, Vizianagaram. The 1^st applicant examined herself as A.W.1 reiterating the above facts. She also marked Exs.A1 to A9, namely, attested copies of FIR, Inquest Report, Postmortem Report, Aadhaar Cards and Ration Card. One N. Annapurneswara Rao, ASI, GRP, Vizianagaram, was examined as A.W.2 and the original CD file brought by him was marked as Ex.A10.

4. The respondent-Railways filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. It was contended that there was no cause of action for the applicants as the claim did not fall within the ambit of Sections 123(c) or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, and the applicants were put to strict proof of all the averments made in the claim application. It was further stated that, as per the FIR, the on-duty Guard of Train No.58502 issued a memo stating that one male person had fallen down between Araku and Similiguda Railway Stations and that no journey ticket was found with him. Therefore, the respondent denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and also put the applicants to strict proof regarding their dependency on the deceased. The respondent marked Ex.B1-Divisional Railway Manager's Report, wherein it was stated that the Guard thoroughly checked the body of the deceased and found no journey ticket and that the ticket subsequently filed was a planted one. On that basis, it was contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination:

1) Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependent(s) of the deceased?

2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?

3) Whether the Applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?

6. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 and A.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the Respondent, no oral evidence was adduced; however, Ex.B1/DRM report was marked.

7. After hearing on both sides, the Tribunal held that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and, consequently, dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

8. Heard Mr.P.L.Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms.Uma Devi, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent.

9. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and, therefore, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation rather than a narrow and technical one, as held in the judgment reported in 2003 (4) SCC 524 in Kunal Singh vs. Union of India; that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the applicants discharged their burden of proof by adducing oral and documentary evidence and, therefore, the burden shifts upon the respondent to disprove the same, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rina Devi vs. Union of India;