M. Duraiswamy JUDGMENT
M. Duraiswamy, J.
1. Challenging the order passed in OA (II-U) 334 of 2014 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., B. Venkata Rami Reddy, used to travel in train by purchasing II class ticket and that they came to know from the Railway Police, Ongole that the deceased while travelling in one of the train prior to 0700 hours of 15.05.2015, between Ulavapadu and Singarayakonda Railway Stations, due to over crowd, jerk and jolt of the train, accidentally fell down from the running train, suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. A case was registered by the Ongole Railway Police, in Crime No. 45 of 2014 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. According to the appellants, the II class ticket purchased by the deceased for his travel from Ulavapadu to Chirala was said to have been lost and the same could not be retrieved by police. 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 B. Venkata Rami Reddy.
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 wife 3 of the deceased was examined as A.W. 1 and 6 documents, Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked, however, on the side of the respondent, neither there was oral nor documentary evidence.
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) MANU/SC/7608/2008 : 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. v. The Workmen MANU/SC/0218/1960 : AIR 1961 SC 647(para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority MANU/SC/0276/1984 : AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and others v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. MANU/SC/0324/1981 : AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13), S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom Distt. Manager MANU/SC/0261/2003 : (2003) 4 SCC 27(para 12) etc.
13. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others