Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The Tribunal after examining the entire evidence on record has held that the applicants have to satisfy two main http://www.judis.nic.in ingredients viz., : the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers and he must have purchased valid tickets for traveling by the train carrying passengers under Section 123(c)(2) and Explanation to Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989. But in this case, no evidence was let in by the applicants regarding purchase of a ticket. AW1/P.Rathinam/Father of the deceased in the proof affidavit has stated that his son was a student at the time of incident and travelled from Coimbatore to Ettimadai and purchased ticket for his travel. Since the alleged journey of the deceased even if true would have been too brief i.e the incident had occurred at KM 19.33 which is less than 2 kms from Coimbatore, and the ticket checking staff of the respondent would not have had adequate time and opportunity to do any checking and hence, the burden of proof cannot be shifted to respondent /railway in this case. It has to be borne in mind that railway stations are not guarded like fortresses and also that railway stations are not like airports with entry barriers. Of course, if a person has undergone a journey for quite a reasonable time the onus can be shifted to the respondent.