1 fa690 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.690 OF 2011 Union of India ...Appellant vs. Smt.Beenadevi Vijay Bahadur Jaiswar ...Respondent Mr.T.J.Pandian for the appellant Mr.P.G.Sawant i/b Mr.Vaneet Khosale for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JUNE 17, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant-Union of India has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 13th February 2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. The claim petition was filed by the respondent under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987 claiming compensation under section 124-A of the Railways Act,1989 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The respondent claims to be the widow of one Vijay. It is stated that the said Vijay while traveling by a local train on 8th December 2003 accidentally fell down from the local train near Mankhurd railway station in Mumbai. After he sustained injuries, he was admitted in a hospital and within few days, he succumbed to the injuries. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as per the Rules. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence adduced by the respondent to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was possessing a valid ticket. He submitted that the 2 fa690 documents produced on record show that the case was not of accidental fall but of knock down of the deceased by another train while the deceased was trying to cross the railway tracks. 3 I have considered the submissions. I have perused the compilation containing notes of evidence and documents on record of the tribunal. As far as the issue regarding the deceased being the bonafide passenger is concerned, it will be necessary to make a reference to the oral evidence of one Shivprakash Ramuram Jaiswar examined by the respondent. He is the real brother of the deceased. In the cross examination it is brought on record from the said witness that the inquest panchanama was made in his presence and the police handed over railway ticket held by the deceased to him and the said ticket which was a return ticket from Mankhurd to Nerul was lost. In view of what is brought on record in the cross examination of the said witness, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 4 As far as second contention is concerned, the appellant examined Mr.S.Awasti, Deputy Station Master. His evidence shows that he had no personal knowledge about the alleged knock down of the deceased by a local train. Therefore, the Tribunal has accepted the case of the accidental fall from the train. Hence, compensation has been granted as per the rules. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 5 Civil application no.2504 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE