Miscellaneous Appeal No.379 OF 2008 Against the order dated 12.05.2008 passed in Claim O.A. No. 9900251 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench. --------- UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY, GORAKHPUR (U.P.) -----------------------(RESPONDENT)-(APPELLANT) Versus KAUSHLENDRA SINGH, SON OF SRI SURENDRA CHANDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HEMANPUR MOHIUDDIN NAGAR, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR ------------------------(APPLICANT)-RESPONDENT --------- For the appellant: Mr. A. Amanullah, Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. (2) Despite service of notice, respondent/claimant has not preferred to appear in this case. (3) The present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was preferred against the judgment and award dated 12.05.2008 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench in Claim Case No. OA: 9900251, whereby, Railway Claims Tribunal had directed the Railway authority to make payment of compensation of Rs. 80,000/- in favour of the respondent/claimant. (4) In this case, son of the respondent was victim of an untoward incident. On 5.10.1998, while his minor son was traveling along with his cousin by Train No. 4131B-H UP from Mohiuddin Nagar to Bithauli Railway Station and he was standing near the gate, due to heavy rush he fell down from the train and sustained injuries on his both the legs. Thereafter, he was treated at different places and claim petition was filed before 2 the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (5) Before the Railway Claims Tribunal, the appellant/North Eastern Railway appeared and filed written statement along with affidavit of one Raj Kumar Gupta who was also examined as a witness in support of the Railways. (6) Main plea which was taken by the Railway against the claim petition was that the son of the claimant was not bona fide passenger. It was claimed that after noticing the rumor of checking of the ticket the son of the claimant jumped from the train, and thereafter, he received injuries, and as such, it was self sustained injury and also the son of the claimant was not a bona fide passenger. Nor on behalf of the claimant ticket was produced before the Tribunal. (7) In this case, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant. Both have supported and corroborated the claim. It was indicated that in the accident ticket was lost but the son of the claimant was a bona fide passenger. (8) Learned Claims Tribunal after examining the evidence brought on record and hearing the parties at length has passed a detailed judgment and award. On perusal of the same, it is evident, that there is no defect. So far question of bona fide passenger is concerned, once an accident is taken place within the jurisdiction of the Railways in which a passenger receives injury, it will be presumed, that he was a bona fide passenger unless it is disapproved by the Railway authority. This 3 proposition has been reiterated on number of occasions. (9) After going through the materials on record, the court is of the opinion that there is no defect in the order which requires no interference. (10) The appeal stands rejected. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 18th of May, 2011 N.A.F.R./Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)