B. P. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE Union of India, through the South Central Railway, is the appellant which seeks to challenge the orders in O. A. A. No. 116 of 1997 dated 8. 5. 1998 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, secunderabad. ( 2 ) THE respondents have laid a claim for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 for the death of the deceased in accident which occurred on 26. 9. 1997. Applicants are the legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased while travelling from Vijayawada to Anaparthi by train No. 431, i. e. , Vijayawada- kakinada Fast Passenger, accidentally slipped and fell down from the train at the north cabin of Anaparthi Railway Station and died on the spot. ( 3 ) THE appellant contested the claim on the ground that the deceased was run over by the train while crossing the railway track. All other allegations were denied putting the applicants to proof, including on the bona fides of the deceased as a passenger. ( 4 ) DURING the inquiry, both sides let in evidence. As per Exh. A-5, the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, anaparthi, the applicants are the heirs and dependants of the deceased. On a consideration of the evidence on either side, including the documents, the Tribunal allowed the claim. ( 5 ) IN support of the appeal, Mr. T. Ramakrishna Rao, the learned standing counsel for the Railways, has strenuously attacked the findings by taking through the entire record and stressed mainly that the applicants have hopelessly failed to establish the case and there is no material to attribute any negligence against the railways. ( 6 ) IN support of the award, Mr. N. Pardha Saradhi, counsel for the respondents- applicants sought to sustain the findings on the basis of the evidence as let in on their behalf. ( 7 ) ON these submissions, the question which calls for a decision in this appeal is as to whether the Railways are responsible for the incident and consequently liable for the compensation? ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute as to the death of the deceased on 26. 9. 1997 at Anaparthi railway Station. ( 7 ) ON these submissions, the question which calls for a decision in this appeal is as to whether the Railways are responsible for the incident and consequently liable for the compensation? ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute as to the death of the deceased on 26. 9. 1997 at Anaparthi railway Station. The case of the applicants is that the deceased is a bona fide passenger with a ticket and while travelling from vijayawada to Anaparthi on the said train, slipped and fell down and as a result of the injuries died on the spot, whereas, the specific case of the appellant was that the deceased came under the train while crossing the railway track. For proving their case, the applicants relied on Exhs. A-1 and A-2, the first information report and inquest report. Exh. A-l is based on the message sent by the Station Superintendent and states that the deceased was holding a ticket bearing No. 31946 from Vijayawada to Anaparthi for the said train. The Station superintendent was examined as RW 1 by the appellant, who was informed by a switchman, Rajababu, that the deceased fell down from the train. The ticket was taken from the deceased. Neither the driver of the train nor the switchman was examined, which is fatal. However, RW 2, the guard was examined, who is not a relevant witness. Thus, in the absence of direct evidence, it is difficult to doubt the version of the applicants. Crucially, the immediate documentary evidence available and which records the event, i. e. , Exhs. A-1 and A-2, go in support of the version of the applicants. Further, the statement of RW 1 also goes in support of the case of the applicants. On the other hand, the specific plea as taken by the appellant that the deceased came under the train while crossing the track has remained unsubstantiated. This is not a case of total denial but with an avowed version. The appellant having thus taken upon itself the heavy burden and it being remained undischarged, there is no other conclusion but to accept the case of the applicants. Accordingly, it has to be held that the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the appellant is liable for the compensation. ( 9 ) THE appeal thus fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.