IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 MFA.No. 227 of 2009() ------------------------------ ( AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 19/3/2009 IN O.A.NO.46/2006 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH) ------------------- APPELLANT(S): ---------------------- UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. K.M.KHALID, S/O.KAZHAYATHODIYIL MOIDU, KAZHAYATHODIYIL HOUSE, PANGARAPPILLY.P.O., CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. A.S.SAJITHA, W/O.K.M.KHALID, KAZHAYATHODIYIL HOUSE, PANGARAPPILLY.P.O., CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 227 of 2009-B ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The appellant - Union of India, assails the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, granting relief to the respondents/claimants in a claim under Sec.16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The respondents are the parents of the deceased person who died in a railway accident. The accident, death etc., are not disputed. Before us the only contention raised is that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. That he was a passenger is admitted. How is it that the appellant contends that he was not a bona fide passenger? The only contention is that no ticket was traced from the dead body or from the scene where the accident had taken place. The claimants advanced a contention that the purse of the deceased was also not traced and he a bona fide passenger must have kept MFA No. 227 of 2009 -: 2 :- the ticket in the purse. The Tribunal raised an issue on this and considered in paragraph-5 of the impugned judgment the question as to whether the deceased can be said to be a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal took the view that the mere fact that the ticket had not been traced from the body of the deceased or the surroundings is no reason to conclude that he was not a bona fide passenger. Entry to the premises of the railways is regulated and controlled. In the total absence of any better material to indicate that the deceased was a trespasser to the railway premises or was a ticketless traveller, from the mere fact that the ticket had not been produced by the claimants, their claim cannot be defeated. We find that the Tribunal has considered the question in proper perspective in paragraph-5 of the impugned judgment. We are not persuaded to accept the only contention raised before us. We are satisfied that this M.F.A. does not deserve admission and deserves to be dismissed in limine. We do so. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge