( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, (for short "the Act") by the Union of India, aggrieved by the order passed by the Railway claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, in o. A. A. No. 59 of 1998. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent died during the pendency of the appeal. The respondents filed the claim before the Railway Claims tribunal Secunderabad (for short "the tribunal") stating that late Mohammed was a resident of Krishna (Railway Station) in Karnataka State. It is stated that he went to the station at Midnight, intervening 5/6-01-1995 to catch the Rayalaseema express, to go to Yadgir, for the purpose of purchasing fertilizers. They pleaded that after purchasing the ticket he boarded the train at about 1:45 hours and slipped from it when the train was in movement, and died instantly. It was their case that he was a bon fide passenger and that they are entitled to be paid compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Railways Act. ( 3 ) THE appellant filed a written statement. It has denied the very occurrence of accident, resulting in the death of the deceased as well as its liability. A plea was raised to the effect that the ticket, which was said to have been recovered from the body of the deceased, was in fact, planted with an oblique motive. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 2,00,000/-, as compensation, to the respondents, through its order dated 04-11-1998. Hence this appeal. ( 4 ) SRI T. Rama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there were contradictions in the version of the respondents herein, as regards the death of the deceased, and that the appellant had established through cogent evidence that neither the deceased was a bonafide passenger nor the death was on account of an accidental fall. He contends that the evidence on record discloses that the ticket, said to have been recovered from the body of the deceased, was not issued at the relevant point of time. He contends that the evidence on record discloses that the ticket, said to have been recovered from the body of the deceased, was not issued at the relevant point of time. Placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Union of India, south Central Railways, Secunderabad v. K. Balakrishnaiah he submits that the deceased failed to exhibit the requisite care and prudence, and the Railways cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that the occurrence of the death, on account of accidental slip of the deceased was proved beyond doubt, and that no exception can be taken to the order under appeal. He contends that there are no contradictions in the versions put forward by the respondents at all. ( 6 ) THE respondents claimed that the deceased died on account of an accidental fall from train No. 7430 - Rayalaseema express at Krishna Railway Station, at 1:45 hours, in the night intervening 5/6-01-1995. The appellant filed written statement denying the occurrence of the accident itself. The tribunal framed necessary issues. P. W. 1, the 2nd respondent, deposed about the contents of the claim petition. She pleaded that her husband went to the Railway Station to catch the train to travel to Yadgir for the purpose of purchasing fertilizers. She has also stated that her husband died on account of accidental fall. She deposed that during the course of inquest a ticket bearing no. 41311, cash of Rs. 540/- and a gold ring were recovered from the dead body of the deceased. On behalf of respondents the assistant Station Master at duty, at the relevant point of time, was examined as r. W. 1. Copies of F. I. R. , inquest report, and dtc register were marked through him. On a consideration of the material before it, the tribunal found that the respondents are the legal heirs/dependants of the deceased; the death of the deceased was on account of an accident fall, and that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and awarded the compensation, as provided for under the act. ( 7 ) THE main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there were several contradictions in the versions of the respondents. ( 7 ) THE main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there were several contradictions in the versions of the respondents. He contends that at one place they pleaded that the deceased died on account of the accidental fall; whereas at other places they pleaded that it was on account of a jerk in the train. In this connection, it needs to be noticed that though the first person to have witnessed the accidental death was R. W. 1 himself and though the F. I. R. , and the inquest were conducted with the participation of the officials of the Railways, in the written statement they have denied the occurrence of the accident itself. Be that as it may, r. W. 1 categorically stated that he has seen the deceased boarding a reserved bogie, 4th from the rear end of the train and that his hastily getting down from it. This proves beyond any doubt that the deceased boarded the train and fell from it, resulting in his death. The causes or reasons for his falling from the train were not spoken to by anyone. None of the respondents were eye-witnesses to the incident. In view of the evidence of r. W. 1, any discrepancy as to the cause of death becomes insignificant. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. This contention also cannot be accepted, in view of the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant itself. The f. I. R. and inquest report were marked through R. W. 1. In the inquest report it is categorically stated that the body of the deceased was found on the tracks; a Constable of the Railway Police and Points-man, heard cries of passengers and thereafter they noticed the dead body. The report reads;"there are; 2 - hundred rupee notes; 6. fifty rupee notes, and 4 - ten rupee notes; the total amount being Rs. 540/ -. There is a gold ring of about six grams with a green stone to the ring finger of the left hand. In the pocket, there is hand book and a train ticket No. 41311 from Krishna to Yadgir. " ( 9 ) THE evidence on record discloses that it is the Railway officials who had the access to the body, ever since the accident took place. In the pocket, there is hand book and a train ticket No. 41311 from Krishna to Yadgir. " ( 9 ) THE evidence on record discloses that it is the Railway officials who had the access to the body, ever since the accident took place. The body was on the Railway platform in the custody of the railway officials. Respondents came to know about it at later point of time. The question of anybody planting a ticket into the dead body, under these circumstances, does not arise. Further the fact that the deceased was having cash with him, is a factor which leads to inference, that he was not a person without means to purchase a ticket. ( 10 ) IT is sought to be impressed upon this court that the ticket was not purchased at the relevant point of time at all. On the basis of the extract of DTC register marked as ex. R-1, learned counsel for the appellant submits that ticket bearing No. 41311 could have been sold early in the morning and not at midnight. It has come in the evidence of r. W. 1 that he sold tickets from 41307 to 41311, meant for Yadgir between 00:00 hours to 07:00 hours on 06-01-1995. He did not state that after train No. 7430, any other train halted at that station. The other evidence was not at all supportive. Therefore the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was a bonafide passenger does not call for any interference. ( 11 ) IT is contended that the deceased did not exhibit proper care and prudence for his safety. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court (1 supra ). It was held therein that where a passenger fails to exhibit the requisite case attention and prudence, and thereby suffers injury, or death, the Railways cannot be held responsible to pay the compensation. To apply this principle, it has to be established through proper evidence, that the passenger in question failed to exhibit such care, attention, or prudence. In their various manuals, the Railways have stipulated the standard norms to be followed by its employees as well as passengers to ensure safety. Prohibition of embarking into, or getting down the train, while it is in motion, etc. , are such steps. In their various manuals, the Railways have stipulated the standard norms to be followed by its employees as well as passengers to ensure safety. Prohibition of embarking into, or getting down the train, while it is in motion, etc. , are such steps. To disentitle the dependants of a deceased, on the ground that latter did not exhibit the requisite care and prudence, necessary factors have to be pleaded and proved. ( 12 ) AS observed earlier, the appellant started with a plea that the accident has not taken place at all. The only witness examined by it, however, stated that he has seen the passenger, i. e. , the deceased entering into a reserved compartment and falling from it. Whether such a fall has takenplace on account of lack of care and prudence on the part of the deceased, or death caused on account of any external factors, were not even spoken to, much less, established. Such grounds cannot be inferred. Hence, it cannot be said that the accident occurred on account of the failure of the deceased, to exhibit proper care, caution and prudence. ( 13 ) VIEWED from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.