1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2242 OF 2005 Ramchandra Devappa Bajantri & anr. ..Appellants V/s. The Union of India ..Respondent Mr.G.J.Mohanrao, advocate, for the appellants Mr.A.N.Samant, advocate, for respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY,2008 P.C. . Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. The claim petition was filed by the appellants before the Railway Claims Tribunal U/s.123(c)(2) R/w.124 A of the Railways Act, 1989. The allegation is that the deceased was travelling by a local train from Kanjur Marg to Bandra via Dadar on 2nd November, 1999. The deceased fell from local train as a result of which he sustained injuries and died in the hospital. The claim has been rejected on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased was a bona 2 fide passenger at the relevant time. 2. The Tribunal observed that the evidence of the first witness (brother of the deceased) examined by the appellants was full of contradictions and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. The Tribunal found the witness made material improvements in the case. The Tribunal noted that though many valuable belongings of the deceased were found, a ticket was not found. The Tribunal noted that even Titan Wrist Watch, identity card of the deceased, tailor's receipt and a cash of Rs.410/- was found on the person of the deceased. Therefore, the case made out by the appellants that the deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket has been disbelieved by the Tribunal. 3. The submission of the learned advocate appearing for the appellants is that obviously a direct evidence cannot be adduced to show that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket or a pass. He submitted that the burden is on the respondent 3 to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. He submitted that considering the evidence on record the Tribunal ought to have accepted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. He therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by dismissing the Claim Petition. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned Judgment and Order. 4. The appellant examined one Bhimrao Bajantri, who is brother of the deceased. The material paragraphs in examination-in-chief read thus :- “I say that on 2-11-1999 my brother while travelling from Bhandup to Bandra by a local via Dadar, fell from the local train near Vidyavihar Station, sustained head injuries and died due to the injuries.” “I say that on 2-11-1999 my brother was travelling on his return ticket from Kanjurmarg to Bandra via Dadar, issued on 2- 11- 1999 and the same was lost in the accident. I say that my brother was accompanied by his friend on his journey.” 5. Accepting whatever is stated in aforesaid part of the Affidavit as correct, it is obvious that the witness had no personal knowledge as to 4 whether his brother had purchased a ticket or a return ticket. In the cross examination the witness admitted that he was not travelling with the deceased on the date of the accident. However, he came out with the case that he had left the deceased at Bandra Station after handing over a ticket to him. He stated that the ticket was handed over at 9.30 A.M. In the further part of the cross examination he stated that he was working in the Municipal office at Bandra and on the date of the incident he was on duty from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. Therefore, two Court questions were asked to the said witness. The said Court questions and reply of the witness read thus :- “Court Question :- You have mentioned in para 2 of the affidavit that the deceased was travelling from Bandra to Bhandup and in your statement today you have stated that you handed over him a ticket at Bandra Station can you clarify. Ans :- The ticket I have to the deceased was from Bandra to Bhandup. It was return ticket. The 5 deceased fell down while returning from Bhandup to Bandra. I sent the deceased to Bhandup where is had left his work incomplete. After that no had to come to Bandra for another work. Court Question :- Please Read 7 of the application and make your commontry(commant) Kanjurmarg Railway Station is close by Bhandup and no ticket is issued for Kanjurmarg. Kanjurmarg the Boarding station for Bhandup. It is incorrect that Kanjurmarg is independent station and is not boarding point of Bhandup.” 6. In a given case where claim is filed U/s.124A of the said Act, 1989 the claimants may not have a personal knowledge whether the deceased victim was possessing a valid ticket. In a given case it is possible to accept the contention that after the death, the ticket might have been lost, but in the peculiar facts of this case, it is very obvious that the testimony of the only witness 6 examined by the appellants is not worth believing. It is obvious that the said witness made an attempt to make improvements in the cross examination. He even denied the fact that there is an independent Railway Station by the name Kanjurmarg. He is obviously not a trustworthy witness. The Inquest Panchanama becomes relevant as the Inquest Panchanama records that a wrist watch and cash of Rs.410/- was found on the person of the deceased. A receipt issued by a tailor was also found on his person. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the case that the Railway ticket was lost. 7. Therefore, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. It cannot be accepted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.) 7