NARAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment, according to law based on legal material placed on record, by both the parties, arises out of a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the sole appellant against the sole respondent under section 23 of the Railway Claims tribunal Act, 1987, questioning the validity and legality of the adjudication made by and as set forth in para 2 infra. ( 2 ) THE order dated 21. 7. 1997 of the railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad made in O. A. A. No. 130 of 1996 on its file. ( 3 ) PERUSED the material papers of the record. ( 4 ) ARGUMENTS of the learned counsel for appellant as well as of the learned standing counsel for the contesting respondent. ( 5 ) THE sole appellant herein, corresponds to the sole applicant in O. A. A. No. 130 of 1996 of the said Tribunal. The sole respondent herein corresponds to the sole respondent in that O. A. A. ( 6 ) THE parties are hereinafter referred to with reference to their respective descriptions in that O. P. unless otherwise, specifically, referred to. ( 7 ) AFTER inquiry into the said O. A. A. No. 130 of 1996, filed by the applicant against the sole respondent for recovery of a total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 in respect of the death of the deceased, on 3. 4. 1996, while travelling in the train bearing No. 1020 Bhubaneshwar-Bombay-Konark Express from Rajahmundry to vijayawada. The said Tribunal finally adjudicated thereupon, by the order referred to in para 2 (supra), as under: "refused to award any compensation, and hence, dismissed the same. " ( 8 ) QUESTIONING the validity and legality of the said orders passed in the O. A. A. , the sole applicant filed C. M. A. , as set forth in para Nos. 1 and 2, urging that the same are erroneous and unsustainable at fact and law, etc. ( 9 ) TO substantiate the claim for compensation, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the rulings reported in Raj kumari v. Union of India, 1993 ACJ 846 (MP) and Rathi Menon v. Union of India, 2001 0 ACJ 721 (SC ). ( 10 ) THE impugned orders, disclose that on issue No. 3 framed by it, the Tribunal recorded that the deceased died in an untoward incident. ( 10 ) THE impugned orders, disclose that on issue No. 3 framed by it, the Tribunal recorded that the deceased died in an untoward incident. This finding became final and binding on all concerned, including the respondent, because of efflux of time to appeal there against. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, on issue No. 2, framed by it, as to whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger after considering the material placed before it, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal dealt with the issue No. 2 in para Nos. 8 to 11 of its impugned orders. ( 12 ) AFTER considering the same, I am of the opinion that an inference can be drawn to the effect that the deceased is a bona fide passenger having regard to the realities and realistic and pragmatic approach of the question involved. It cannot invariably be conceived or comprehended that always ticket should be traced. One has to imagine the circumstances that will prevail at the relevant time and whether keeping of the ticket should be given that much of importance at the crucial time when the deceased was suffering from fatal injuries and died; ticket could have been missing. So from the material on record it must be held that deceased is a bona fide passenger. ( 13 ) WHEN so, it follows that compensation is payable in respect of the death of the deceased. ( 14 ) THE proved death had occurred on 3. 4. 1996. Hence, the total compensation of rs. 2,00,000 as claimed in the O. A. A. is payable, as is being ordered hereunder. ( 15 ) HENCE the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the C. M. A. as under:i. Setting aside the impugned order set forth in para 2, in toto. II. Consequently, adjudicating the said o. A. A. No. 130 of 1996, directing the sole respondent to pay to the sole applicant a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the O. A. A. till the realisation. Appeal allowed.