1 FAST 16902 OF 2010 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 16902 OF 2010 Union of India .. Appellant. -versus Mohamed Din Butt & ors .. Respondents. Mr. Kiran J. Kandpile, for the Appellant. Mr. Niyaj Ahmed, for respondent No.1. CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. DATED: 3rd May, 2011. P.C. 1. The challenge by the Union of India is to the judgment and order dated 13th August, 2009, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, on a claim made by the respondents under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). 2. The respondents are the dependants of deceased Javed Ahmed. The case of the respondent is that the deceased while tavelling by a suburban local train on 2nd January, 2003, accidentally fell down from the train and succumbed to the injuries sustained. The case made out by the respondents is that it is the case of an untoward incident, 2 FAST 16902 OF 2010 within the meaning of sub clause (2) of Clause (c) of section 123 of the said Act. The case made out by the respondents was accepted by the Tribunal and compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest was granted. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was nothing on record to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger inasmuch as the ticket allegedly held by the deceased was not found on his person and that the same was not produced. He submitted that the theory of the first witness examined by the respondents that two tickets were purchased is extremely doubtful and the same ought to have been discarded by the trial Court. His submission is that the respondents have not proved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 4. He pointed out the evidence of Mr. Jagdish Chandra, a motorman, adduced by the appellant. He submitted that the motorman deposed that the deceased suddenly jumped out of a train on a track on which the said witness was running a suburban local train. He submitted that there is hardly any cross examination of the said witness. He, therefore, submitted that the case of an untoward incident was not established by the respondents. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the notes of evidence. The witness Ayoub Jalaluddin Shaikh deposed that he was travelling alongwith the 3 FAST 16902 OF 2010 deceased. He stated that at Nala Sopara Station he had purchased two second class journey tickets for traveling upto Malad. He stated that he had kept one ticket with himself and gave the other to the deceased who kept the ticket in his pocket. He deposed that near Vasai Road railway station, due to sudden pressure exerted by the passengers in the compartment, the deceased lost grip of his hand and suddenly fell down from the running train. He stated that another train which was proceeding towards Virar, knocked down the deceased as a result the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained. 6. The perusal of the cross examination of said witness shows that there is no specific suggestion given that he had not purchased two second class single journey tickets. The cross examination was on the exact fare of the tickets. The date on which tickets were allegedly purchased is 2nd January, 2003 and the cross examination was made in November, 2008. Therefore, the witness was unable to remember the exact fare of the tickets after lapse of 6 years. The witness was not in a position to produce the ticket held by him after lapse of six years. After reading the cross examination of witness, one gets an impression that there is no serious challenge to the fact that witness had purchased two journey tickets. The Railway Claims Tribunal is not bound by strict rules of evidence. After considering the evidence of the said 4 FAST 16902 OF 2010 witness and his cross examination, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was possessing a valid journey ticket. It is not possible to find fault with the said finding. 7. The evidence of Mr. V. Jagdish Chandra, a Motorman is that the deceased suddenly jumped from another train on the track on which he was running a train. The witness obviously has no personal knowledge as regards the reason why the deceased fell down from running train. He could not have deposed from his personal knowledge that the deceased jumped from another train. He had no personal knowledge as to whether the deceased on his own jumped from the train or that he accidentally fell down. Thus, the personal knowledge of the witness is only to the extent that the deceased fell down from another running train and that he was run over by the train run by him. 8. The witness examined by the respondents has deposed regarding the accidental fall of the deceased from a train. Thus, it appears this is a case where there was an accidental fall from the train and after the accidental fall, the deceased was run over by another train. Thus, this is a case where sub clause (2) of clause (c) of section 123 of the said Act was certainly attracted. Hence no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. No case for interference is made out. First Appeal is dismissed with no corder as to costs. 5 FAST 16902 OF 2010 9. Civil Application No.2531 of 2010 does not survive and the same disposed of accordingly. (A. S. OKA, J.)