1 fa1098-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIION rpa FIRST APPEAL NO.1098 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2571 OF 2009 Union of India .. Appellants V/s. Mrs. Sairabano Syed Hussain & Ors. .. Respondents .... Mr. T. J. Pandian for the appellants. None for the respondents. .... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 3, 2011. P.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (Union of India). The challenge in this Appeal is to the Judgment and order dated 26th February, 2009, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai in a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the “said Act”). The claim petition was filed by the respondents invoking section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1984. 2. According to the case of the respondents/claimants, the deceased Syed was traveling in a local train from Chembur to Vikroli via Kurla on 3rd August, 2002. It is alleged that after the 2 fa1098-10 train left the platform, the deceased slipped and accidentally fell down on the railway track and succumbed to the injuries sustained. The case of the respondents is that the deceased was holding a valid monthly season ticket alongwith identity card and season ticket was valid upto 10th August, 2002. The season ticket was from Bhandup to Mankhurd. It was contended that this is a case of accidental fall, and, therefore, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- was payable on the ground of the death of deceased in an untoward incident. 3. The defence of the appellant was that it was not a case of accidental fall and in fact the deceased was knocked down by the local train. The appellant denied that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the memo issued by the station master records that the deceased was knocked down. He criticized the finding of the Tribunal that either the motorman or guard of the train ought to have been examined to establish that the deceased was knocked down. He submitted that in many cases, neither the motorman 3 fa1098-10 nor the guard may be in a position to depose that a particular person was knocked down in as much as both of them may not have seen a by-passer being knocked down. He submitted that as a case of accidental fall has not established by the respondent, Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1984, will have no application and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error. 5. I have considered the submissions. I have perused the paper book placed on record by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is true that the memorandum of the station master shows that the deceased was knocked down by a suburban train. At the same time, it must be noted that on the person of the deceased, a valid season ticket alongwith identity card in the name of the deceased was found. The said season ticket from Mankhurd to Bhandup was valid on the date of the incident. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that nothing was placed on record to show that both the documents are not genuine. The incident occurred near Chembur station. As the deceased was holding a valid monthly pass alongwith identity card, the Tribunal has disbelieved the case of the appellant that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that he was knocked down. It must be noted here 4 fa1098-10 that in the inquest panchanama, it recorded that season ticket and identity card was found on the person of the deceased. As the deceased was found to be holding a valid season ticket, the deceased must have been traveling by a suburban train and, therefore, the case of accidental fall has been accepted. It is true that the Tribunal could not have held that it was necessary for the Railways to examine either to the motorman or the guard. In the face of the evidence, in the form of the valid season ticket, the case of the appellant which was based only on station mater's memorandum has been discarded by the Tribunal by observing that the station master may not have any personal knowledge regarding the said incident. It is not possible to find fault with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the Appeal, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no orders as to costs. 7. Civil Application No. 2571 of 2009, also does not survive and the same is also disposed of. JUDGE