A.J. Shastri, J.

1. By way of present First Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 a challenge is made to the decision dated 11.05.2006 delivered by the Railway Claims Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench in Case No. O.A. 0500136.

2. The case of original claimant-opponent is that the claimant was travelling in Train No. 9168 UP Sabarmati Express on 21.04.2005, which collided with JNPT Conraj Goods Train standing on Line No. 4 at Samalaya Station of Vadodara Division, Western Railway. On account of such untoward incident, the original claimant i.e. opponent sustained grievous injuries almost all part of the body. As a result of this, he has sought a claim to the extent of Rs. 3,91,500/-and the said claim petition was registered as Case No. OA 0500136 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench.

2.1. After considering the overall circumstances, which are prevailing on record, and the evidence having been examined, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench was pleased to pass judgment and order on 11.05.2006, which is made the subject matter of present First Appeal.

3. The present First Appeal appears to have been admitted by virtue of order dated 13.03.2008, which has then came up for consideration before this Court finally and record & proceedings have also reached to this Court. As a result of this, the First Appeal is taken up for hearing.

4. Ms. Reeta Chandarana, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that a clear error is committed by the learned Tribunal in allowing the compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-more particularly when the original ticket was not produced by the respondent and further on account of the material having not been so cogently produced before the learned Tribunal, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not just and proper, which requires to be corrected. However, Ms. Chandarana, learned advocate has fairly and candidly submitted that considering the factum of accident and ticket and as such, after drawing attention to some of the observations made by the learned Tribunal, a request is made to pass suitable order in the present First Appeal.

5. As against this, Mr. Mahesh B. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that the order passed is after assigning proper reasons and after evaluation the evidence on record and as such he has supported the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it appears from the record that the factum of accident which has taken place on 21.04.2005 is not disputed throughout by the railway administration and in addition thereto, the grievous injuries which have been suffered by the opponent are also almost admitted, and as such, when these two elements are specifically not disputed by the railway administration, it appears that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and only defence which appears to have been taken is with regard to the ticket having not been produced in original form but now during the course of submissions, it has been candidly submitted that the original ticket has been found from the record and proceedings as submitted by Ms. Chandarana, learned advocate and it has been specifically recorded that copy of the ticket along with the medical record, FIR, station diary and panchnama were also forming part of the record and it is after appreciation of all these materials on record, the specific conclusion is arrived at, and hence, this Court is of the opinion that no error is committed by the learned Tribunal while arriving at a decision. Hence, in view of this, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse in any form. Every aspect appears to have been gone into by the learned Tribunal hence, the possible view which has been taken by the learned Tribunal is required no interference.

7. At this stage, the scope of appeal has already been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions which are in the case of Venkatesh Construction Company versus Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited reported in (2016) 4 SCC 119 [LQ/SC/2016/121] and in the case of V. Prabhakara versus Basavaraj K. (DEAD) By Legal Representative and another reported in (2022) 1 SCC 115 [LQ/SC/2021/3156 ;] which are propounding that if the conclusion is arrived at after appreciation of proper material and the view taken by the learned Tribunal below is a possible view then on the basis of very same material normally the substitution of view is not permissible unless there appears to be material irregularity or perversity whereas herein in this case no such eventuality is reflecting. On the contrary, the judgments are to that effect that even if inadvertently original ticket is not produced, but attended circumstances are indicating that the claimant has sustained the injuries on account of undisputed accident then the claim cannot be refused. In a recent decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamrunnissa versus Union of India reported in (2019) 12 SCC 391, [LQ/SC/2017/168] few observations contained in the decision deserve an attention while coming to an ultimate conclusion in the present proceedings and as such since same are considered by this Court, the most relevant observations which are contained in paragraph 10, the Court would like to reproduce hereunder:-

"10. This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analysing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India3 and the judgements of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India4 , Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India5 and also considered the judgement of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India6 and in para 29 concluded as thus-

"We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."

8. Considering the overall circumstances, which are prevailing on record and in view of aforementioned pronouncement, this Court is of the opinion that when the admitted positions which are very much reflecting and considered by the learned Tribunal in the absence of any distinguishable material, this Court is not in a position to dislodge the observation which has been made by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, since First Appeal lacks meritless, the same stands dismissed.