1 fa1062-10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1062 OF 2010 Union of India .. Appellant V/s. Motilal Mourya & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr. T. J. Pandian for the appellant. Mr. Kuldip Singh for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : JULY 22, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The respondent filed an application under Section 124 A of the Railways Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The case made out by the respondent is that their son Rampreet Mitilal Maurya was travelling by a suburban train from Kalwa to Kalyan on 7th August, 2002. As a result of the heavy rush in the train, between the Kalwa and Mumbra stations, the deceased accidentally fell down and sustained injuries. He succumbed to the injuries on 26th August, 2002. The case made out in the claim petition was that the deceased died due to an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the said Act as the deceased accidentally fell down from the train. 2 fa1062-10 2. The claim petition was contested by the Railways by denying that the deceased died due to an untoward incident and that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. The Tribunal accepted the case that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that the death of the deceased occurred as a result of an untoward incident. Therefore, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest has been granted. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that in the claim application, the respondent never came out with the case that the deceased was holding a valid season ticket. He submitted that the said case is made out only in the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the first respondent. He submitted that at no stage, a case is made out that the deceased was holding a season ticket and it was lost in the accident. He submitted that in absence of the pleadings, the appellant discharged the burden on it by cross examining the first respondent on the issue of the deceased holding a season ticket. He submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 4. I have giving careful consideration to the submissions. It is true that in the claim petition there is no specific averment that 3 fa1062-10 the deceased was holding a valid season ticket at the time of accident. It has come in the evidence of the 2nd respondent in the examination-in-chief that the deceased was holding a season ticket but the same was lost in the accident. 5. The report of the police constable attached to Thane Railway Police Station was produced on record. As stated earlier, the deceased died few days after the accident. The police constable who submitted the report admitted the deceased in Civil Hospital at Thane. In the report, the police constable has stated that one leather valet was found on the person of the deceased but the same was empty and it did not contain any money. This is a report submitted at the earliest in point of time. On the basis of this report, the Tribunal has accepted the case made out by the respondents that the deceased was holding a valid season ticket which must have been lost. The fact that empty valet was found on the person of the deceased was sufficient to draw the said inference. 6. The Tribunal established under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is not bound by the strict rules of evidence. Hence, I find no fault in the order passed by the Tribunal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 4 fa1062-10 7. The amount deposited in this Court with interest accrued thereon, if any, be transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal will permit the respondents to withdraw the amount. (A.S.OKA, J.)