1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 403 OF 2010 Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad ...Appellants (Org. Respondents) Versus 1. Smt.Sandhya Ankush Puri 2. Miss. Shital Ankush Puri 3. Mr.Avinash Ankush Puri all res. At Ghatnandur Taluka Parli Vaijanath District Beed, Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr.T.J.Pandian for the Appellant None for the Respondent CORAM:- A.V.NIRGUDE J. DATED:- 29th NOVEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT. 1. As indicated by the Order dated 28th September, 2011 the appeal is taken up for final hearing. With the help of learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, I went though the pleadings, notes of evidence and other documents which were brought on record of the lower Court/Tribunal. 2. The appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 2.12.2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai on O.A. No.553 of 2004. It is common ground that one Ankush, while boarding a 2 passenger train on 22.3.2008 at about 2.45 p.m. at Ghatnandur Railway Station, fell down and died. It is the case of the respondent- claimants that before boarding the train Ankush and his companion, witness Dattagiri had purchased two tickets for Parali and were trying to board train No.532 which was going towards Parali. 3. The appellant opposed the claim on the ground that the deceased Ankush was not bonafide passenger of the train in question. They contended through the report filed on record that the ticket bought by Ankush before boarding the train pertained to some other train, namely train No.349 UP. Relying on this report, they tried to prove that Ankush was not a bonafide passenger. The learned Member of the Tribunal, however, rejected this defence holding that the appellant did not prove their defence through oral evidence. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant challenged this finding of the Tribunal. The question that arises for my consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant in rebuttal could prove that Ankush was not a bonafide passenger? As said above, the claimants could prove through evidence of witness Datagiri that Ankush had purchased the ticket of Parali and thereafter he tried to board the train. The report of the appellant indicates that the ticket bought by Ankush was issued for traveling by another train bearing No.349 UP. However, the appellant did not lead evidence further to prove that the ticket bought by Ankush for other train was not usable for traveling in train No.532. Apparently, both these trains were in the same direction and as such, assuming Ankush had purchased the ticket which was meant for train No.349 UP, one may not be able to say 3 that the same was not usable for the next or previous train going in the same direction. Of course, these observations are not based on evidence of the appellant but it is merely guess work. The learned Member of the Tribunal made no error when he rejected the plea of the appellant for want of oral evidence. The plea of this nature should be appended with oral evidence explaining as to how the ticket in question was not usable for other train. So, although the report filed by the appellant on record was admissible in evidence, it did not really serve the appellant’s purpose to prove the case. The appeal should therefore fail. Hence the order: ORDER Appeal stands dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant shall be handed over to the respondent, claimant. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) !!