L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order dated 30-3-1998, passed by the secunderabad Bench of the Railway Claims tribunal in O. A. A. No. 103 of 1997. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 filed the claim before the Tribunal alleging that their son, by name, Srinivas, fell down from the train at Nagulapally Railway Station, while travelling from Shankarapally to Sanathnagar, on 4-9-1997 through passenger Train No. 329! according to them, he went to Shankarapally along with his brother, to the house of their relatives on 1-9-1997. The brother of the deceased is said to have returned on 3-9-1997; whereas the deceased, who got down at Nagulapally Station, fell down in the process of catching the train. The appellant filed written statement, disputing its liability. It took the plea that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It was also contended that the deceased was trying to catch a moving train, and it cannot be said to be an untoward incident. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal framed three issues, viz. , whether the respondents were dependant on the deceased; whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and whether the accidental fall, as alleged, is not an untoward incident. ( 4 ) THE 1st respondent deposed as aw-1, and he filed documents Exs. A-l to A-5. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal answered the issues in favour of the respondents and awarded Rs. 2 lakhs, as compensation. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and that the death did not take place on account of any accidental slip. He submits that even a reading of the claim petition discloses that the ticket, alleged to have been purchased by the deceased, was not preserved, and that he was attempting to catch a running train. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the documents Exs. A-1 and A-2 clearly disclose that a ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased, and there cannot be any doubt that he was a bona fide passenger. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the documents Exs. A-1 and A-2 clearly disclose that a ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased, and there cannot be any doubt that he was a bona fide passenger. He also contends that the circumstances under which the deceased has fallen down, are not stated even by the respondents, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased. ( 7 ) THE fact that the deceased died on account of slipping from the train at nagulapally Railway Station, is not in dispute. The dead body was recovered from the tracks, at the platform. ( 8 ) THE inquest report (Ex. A-2), was prepared, and the death certificate (Ex. A-3) were issued by the Government Railway police. The relationship, of the deceased with the respondents, is also not in dispute. Two questions arise for consideration in this appeal, viz. , (a) whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and, (b) whether he died out of an accidental fall. ( 9 ) AS regards the first question, there is a conclusive proof in the form of exs. A-1 and A-2, viz. , the F. I. R. , and the inquest report. It was clearly mentioned therein that a passenger-ticket was recovered from the dead body of the deceased. The respondents were at a far off place, when the accident took place, and there were none related to the deceased at the time of the accident. Hence, it can not be said that the ticket was planted in his pocket. ( 10 ) THE 1st respondent explained as to why the ticket that was recovered from the dead body was not preserved. As aw-1, he stated that the ticket was stained with the blood of the deceased, and when the 2nd respondent, the mother of the deceased, started weeping on seeing it, out of emotion, the ticket was burnt. There is nothing unnatural about it. If at all anything, it discloses the depth of the grief, felt by the mother, on account of the untimely death of her son. Therefore, there does not exist any doubt that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. There is nothing unnatural about it. If at all anything, it discloses the depth of the grief, felt by the mother, on account of the untimely death of her son. Therefore, there does not exist any doubt that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. ( 11 ) AS for the second question, the circumstances under which the deceased slipped from the train, are not spoken to, by any eye-witness. Though the accident is said to have taken place in the station itself, no one has been examined, who has witnessed it. As observed earlier, the deceased was not accompanied by anyone related to him. The assertion in the pleadings that he slipped in the process of boarding a running train, is obviously, based on guess work. It is true that where a bona fide passenger sustains injury, or succumbs to them, on account of his own negligence, or lack of prudence, the railways cannot be held liable. It was held so, in Union of India v. K. Balakrishnaiah, 2004 (1) AID 449 = 2004 (1) ALT 100 (FB ). However, the factors, such as negligence on the part of such victims, or lack of prudence, on their part, need to be specifically pleaded and proved. No inference can be drawn as to existence of the same, in the absence of pleading and evidence. In such cases, the adjudication has invariably to be guided by circumstantial evidence. ( 12 ) EXCEPT pleading that the deceased fell in the process of boarding a running train, no one, who is said to have seen the deceased, making an attempt to board the running train, has been examined. Once it emerges that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and he died on account of a slip from the train, that too, in the station-yard, the incident squarely falls within the definition of accidental fall under section 123 (c) (ii) of the Railways Act. Parliament defined the term in very wide terms, being conscious of the fact that victims of the accident or their dependants need to be compensated. ( 13 ) HENCE, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.