1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 539 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1437 OF 2008 Union of India ........Appellant versus Smt. Aminabee Kamal Kunure & anr.........Respondent. Mr. A.N. Samant adv. for the Appellant. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh adv. for the Respondent no.1. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI,J. DATED : 6th September, 2010. P.C.: 1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claim Tribunal in case no. 269/04, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent and awarding compensation of Rs. 4 lacs to the respondent on account of death of the deceased Majid Kamal Kunure. 2. It is claimed by the respondent that the deceased who was a daily commuter in the local train, fell down from the train on 19-2-2004 due to jerk as he was standing near the door. The learned tribunal on the basis of the evidence led before it, came to the conclusion that the deceased while traveling in the local train, had fallen from the train and as such awarded compensation. Mr. Samant, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that 2 falling from the local train cannot be a ground for awarding compensation. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary submits that the learned tribunal has given sound and cogent reasons for awarding compensation which requires no interference. 4. The learned tribunal on the basis of the evidence led before it, has come to a finding of fact that the death of the deceased had occurred due to fall from the train. 5. The Apex court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar reported in 2008(5) ALL MR 917 has held that the deceased falling on a railway track while getting into a moving train and run over by train, would be entitled to compensation under the Railways Act 1989. In two other matters, the learned Single Judges of this court in the case of (1) Union of India Vs. Suchitra Ganesh Pathare & ors reported in 2008(4) Mh.L.J. 96 and (2) Sahadeo Sibdhu Sanas Vs. Union of India reported in 2010(2) Bom.C.R. 43, have also held similarly. In that view of the matter no merit is found in the appeal and the appeal is therefore dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. 7. The amount of compensation deposited by the appellant is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent in the proportion 3 granted under the award the surplus deposit if any, would be permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)