The Court ruled that in compensation claims for railway accidents, the presumption is that a passenger holds a valid ticket, shifting the burden of proof to railways to disprove this status.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants, who are claimants, against the order dated 06.1.2015 made in O. A. No.(II - U) 344 of 2013 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants, who are legal heirs of the deceased Srinivasan.

2. The appellants herein have contended before the Tribunal that the deceased Srinivasan was a passenger in the EMU train and he was travelling from Tambaram to Chennai Beach and while travelling, the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train between Saidapet and Mambalam Railway Stations and sustained injuries all over the body and thereafter, he succumbed to injuries. According to the appellants, the deceased purchased ticket to travel in the train, but the same was lost.

3. Disputing the version of the appellants, the respondent filed counter stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and no journey ticket was found from the body of the deceased. It is stated that the incident would not attract S.123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 .

4. Before the Tribunal, the first appellant examined herself as A.W.1 and marked Ex.A1 to A6. On the side of the respondent, no witness was examined, however, the report of the Divisional Railway Manager, Chennai Division, dated 13.1.2014 was produced.

5. The Tribunal, in its order though admitted that there was an accidental falling, it held that in the absence of proof of bona fide travel with ticket, it cannot be termed as an untoward incident for claiming compensation and, thus, dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the same, the appellants have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

6. Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. T. P. Savitha, learned Government Advocate for the respondent and perused all the material records and judgments produced by either parties.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that only the deceased can state whether he had purchased the ticket or not and in such circumstances, the presumption must be to the effect that the deceased had purchased the ticket. He would submit that the Tribunal failed to note that the accident will not come under the proviso to S.124(A) of the Railways Act and that the accident was purely an untoward incident. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that there is every possibility of losing the ticket in the accident. According to the learned counsel, the deceased was a bona fide passenger and after purchasing ticket only, he had travelled in the train. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:
(i)Rathi Menon v. Union f India, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1333 ;
(ii)The Union of India owning Southern Railway by its General Manager, Chennai v. G. Jayalakshmi and others, reported in 2012 (3) CTC 741 ;
(iii)A. Thanikachalam and others v. Union of India, owning Southern Railway, rep. by its General Manager, Chennai, reported in 2016 (6) CTC 820 ; and
(iv) Union of India v. Rina Devi , reported in 2018 (7) SCALE 274 .

8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the initial onus is on the appellants to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the same was not discharged by the appellants by producing the journey ticket. She would submit that there is no bona fide in the claim made by the appellants and that the Tribunal was right in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants. According to the learned Government Advoca