L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal, under Section 23 of the railway Claims Tribunal Act, arises out of an order dated 14-12-2001 passed by the secunderabad Bench of the Railway Claims tribunal, in O. A. A. No. 213 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE 1st appellant is the husband and the 2nd appellant is the daughter of late kavila Komalangi. They filed O. A. A. No. 213 of 2000 before the Tribunal with the following pleadings: The 1st appellant is a retired railway employee. He was issued a first class complimentary pass by the concerned railway Authority, by Khurda Road, Orissa state, enabling him and his family members to travel from Tatanagar to Tirupati, between 21-6-2000 to 20-10-2000. The 1st appellant and his wife boarded Konark Express on 14-9-2000 at Berhampur for travelling to visakhapatnam, for the purpose of distribution of wedding cards, for the marriage of the 2nd appellant, and that when the train was moving at Simhachalam railway station, his wife by name, Komalangi, fell down and died instantly. The appellants claimed compensation under the provisions of the Railways Act and the Rules made thereunder. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT opposed the claim and pleaded that though the 1 st appellant held a pass to travel in first class, himself and his wife entered a second-class sleeper coach without proper authority and entitlement, and thereby, they cannot be said to be bona fide passengers. A further contention was raised that the 1st appellant did not obtain the necessary travel tickets by producing the complimentary pass. On a consideration of the contentions put forward before it, by the parties, the Tribunal rejected the claim through the order under appeal. ( 4 ) SRI J. Pramod Goud, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the 1st appellant held a valid complimentary pass for travelling between Tatanagar and tirupati, at the relevant point of time, and thereby, the deceased was very much a bona fide passenger. He submits that it was not at all necessary for the 1st appellant to obtain any ticket, by producing the pass held by him. Placing reliance upon the definitions of pass and passenger , he submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. He submits that it was not at all necessary for the 1st appellant to obtain any ticket, by producing the pass held by him. Placing reliance upon the definitions of pass and passenger , he submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. ( 5 ) SRI B. H. R. Chowdary, learned standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the pass held by the 1st appellant enabled him to travel in first- class compartment, whereas, himself and his wife were travelling in a second-class sleeper coach. It is his contention that a complimentary pass does not entitle the holder of it, to enter any and every compartment, and that he would be treated as a bona fide passenger only when he uses the pass in conformity with the conditions, subject to which, it is issued. ( 6 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the deceased can be said to be a bona fide passenger. The fact that the deceased died out of an accidental fall from the train on 14-9-2000 and her relationship with the appellants is not in dispute. Admittedly, the 1st appellant is a retired railway employee. He was issued a complimentary pass, ex. A-3, on 21-6-2000, to enable him to travel in first-class, between Tatanagar and tirupati. It was valid for a period of four months. The pass was not restricted to travel in a particular train. The place at which the accident took place is, in between Tatanagar and Tirupati. The main objection raised by the respondent was that though Ex. A-3 enabled the 1st appellant and his family members to travel in first-class, he was travelling in a second-class sleeper coach along with his wife, on the relevant date. It needs to be seen as to whether this contention, even if taken on its face value, disentitles the appellants from making the claim. ( 7 ) UNDER sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989, pass is defined as under: "pass" means an authority given by a railway administration, or by an officer appointed by a railway administration in this behalf, and authorize the person to whom it is given to travel as a passenger on a railway gratuitously". ( 7 ) UNDER sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989, pass is defined as under: "pass" means an authority given by a railway administration, or by an officer appointed by a railway administration in this behalf, and authorize the person to whom it is given to travel as a passenger on a railway gratuitously". The word passenger is defined in the next sub-section, to mean, a person travelling with a valid pass or a ticket. Much of the discussion undertaken by the Tribunal has turned around, the alleged failure of the 1st appellant in obtaining a ticket, by producing the pass, Ex. A-3. A perusal of the definition pass discloses that it is an authority given by the Railways enabling the person, to travel as a passenger. It is equated to a ticket. The definition does not indicate that the pass becomes valid, only when a ticket is obtained, on production of the same. Therefore, the contention that Ex. A-3 does not, by itself, authorize the 1st appellant to travel in a train, cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) THE next aspect is as to whether the holder of a pass to travel in a particular class of coach, becomes a trespasser, if he travels in any other category of coaches. The respondent pleaded that the 1st appellant was not entitled to travel in a second-class sleeper coach, on the strength of a pass, for a first-class compartment. In the limited context of considering whether an individual is a bona fide passenger, for the purpose of awarding compensation under the Act, the distinction sought to be maintained by the respondent, becomes hardly significant. In the context of the claims before the Tribunal, the person concerned has to be the bona fide passenger of the train, and not of any compartment. Instances are not lacking wherein passengers holding ordinary travel ticket enter reserved or A. C. coaches, either in a hurry or with a view to verify from the conductor as to the validity of accommodation. Further, passenger holding a valid pass or ticket to travel in an A. C. coach or a reserved compartment, is not prohibited, from entering other compartments, reserved or otherwise, be it, for the purpose of meeting friends, or in the course of moving to other coaches, such as, pantry car. Further, passenger holding a valid pass or ticket to travel in an A. C. coach or a reserved compartment, is not prohibited, from entering other compartments, reserved or otherwise, be it, for the purpose of meeting friends, or in the course of moving to other coaches, such as, pantry car. If such a passenger sustains injuries while in a coach, other than the one in which his seat or berth is reserved, he cannot be treated as not bona fide passenger. Hence, the view taken by the tribunal, in this regard, cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel made strenuous efforts to convince this Court for remanding the matter for fresh consideration. This Court would certainly have acceded to the request, if there was any necessity to verify further facts, or to undertake any exercise, to determine the compensation. It is a matter of record that the deceased was travelling with the 1st appellant, who was issued Ex. A-3, and thereby, she was a bona fide passenger. There is nothing on record to disclose that there was any negligence on the part of the deceased. The Act and the Rules provide for fixed amount of compensation in cases of death. ( 10 ) HENCE, the order under appeal is set aside and the C. M. A. is allowed. Consequently, the O. A. A. No. 213 of 2000 shall stand allowed, and the appellants shall be entitled to be paid compensation of rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only ). The amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum, in case, it is not deposited within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the same, the appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupee Two lakhs only), each. From the amount payable to the appellant No. 2, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of five years, in a Nationalized Bank, and she shall be entitled tp withdraw the same after the expiry of that period. There shall be no order as to costs.