Judgment (Per: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shailesh Kr. Sinha) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent-Union of India represented by Arvind Ujjwal, Advocate. 2. The appeal is directed against the order dated 16th January, 2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 000219 of 2004 disallowing the claim of Rs. 4,00,000.00 (4 lacs) claimed under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal disallowed the claim without any valid justification, more so, in absence of any evidence contrary to the evidence adduced on the behalf of the applicant. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact of travelling by the deceased on the valid railway ticket as mentioned in para 7 of the claim application was not denied rather in the written statement filed on behalf of the Railway Authorities, it was stated that statement made in para 7 of the claim application needs no comment. The fact of travelling on the valid railway ticket having not denied in the evidence of eyewitness namely, Prashant Kumar (AW-2) as also his affidavit being the co-passenger with the deceased was ample to allow the claim. It is further submitted there is no oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the Railway to counter the claim. The Tribunal considered and analyzed the evidence of the claimants in the same way as if the claim case is a criminal trial, it is submitted that the approach of the Tribunal while considering the claim application under the aforesaid Act ought to have been liberal as the payment is governed under the Act being compensation a beneficial legislation. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, learned counsel appearing for the Railway supports the order. 4. The basic facts are not in dispute. The case of the applicant is that her unmarried son namely, Prabhat Kumar was travelling from Jehanabad to Patna Railway Station alongwith his friend namely, Prashant Kumar (AW-2) on a valid railway ticket bearing nos. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, learned counsel appearing for the Railway supports the order. 4. The basic facts are not in dispute. The case of the applicant is that her unmarried son namely, Prabhat Kumar was travelling from Jehanabad to Patna Railway Station alongwith his friend namely, Prashant Kumar (AW-2) on a valid railway ticket bearing nos. 28643 and 28641 while the train reached at Potahi Railway Station on account of huge rush of the passengers for detraining, the deceased who was standing near the gate of the train fell down from the moving train, a friend of the deceased who was also travelling alongwith him got down from the train when it stopped at Potahi Station and went near the place where the deceased had fell down who found him dead. Accordingly, he informed the police. The Station Master, Potahi Railway Station informed the G.R.P. an U.D. case bearing no. 45 of 2004 was registered and post mortem of the deceased was held. The doctor found that the deceased died due to serious head injury and after having post mortem vide Annexure-5, the dead body was handed over to the applicant Surendra Singh, (Ext.-6), father of the deceased. The police after investigation also submitted a final report (Ext.-7) mentioning therein about the death of the deceased and also mentioned the same railway ticket number which was recovered as claimed by the applicant. After obtaining death certificate, the claim case in question was filed by the applicant claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (4 lacs) for the untoward incident. 5. Now upon considering submission of the parties and on perusal of the material/evidence brought on behalf of the aforesaid claim, it would appear that the Tribunal rejected the claim primarily on account of some discrepancies in the evidence of Prashant Kumar (AW-2) with respect to the ticket number as also manner of the incident and also whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not. 6. As noticed above, the controversy lies in narrow compass, since the fact of travelling by the deceased on a valid railway ticket as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the claim application is not denied. The applicant witness no.1, the father of the deceased was admittedly not an eye-witness to the incident and as such, his evidence is not a material witness. The applicant witness no.1, the father of the deceased was admittedly not an eye-witness to the incident and as such, his evidence is not a material witness. However, evidence of (AW-2) Prashant Kumar who has supported the claimant by filing his affidavit (Ext.-1) as also in his oral evidence the fact of travelling, purchase of ticket, felling down of the deceased from the train and the manner of incident have been categorically stated in his oral evidence although he was put to rigorous cross-examination but nothing material could be achieved in such cross-examination. The trial court expressed serious doubt on his evidence taking into consideration that in his evidence, he (AW-2) claims the railway ticket no. 28643 whereas in the police report, I.O. mentioned ticket number as 67932, I could not find from where this number is mentioned in paragraph 10 of the order under appeal whereas (Ext.-A-7) final report of the police mentioned the ticket number as 28643 and not 67932. As regard the genuineness of the claim of the claimants who were father and mother of the deceased was not found justified. The Tribunal expresses his doubt in all the documents including the name of the applicant-Surendra Singh the father of the deceased. However, materials were sufficient in absence of any counter evidence on record to allow the claim. Therefore, in my opinion in view of the documents brought on record on behalf of the applicants which were accepted without any objection and in absence of any evidence on record adduced on behalf of Railway by oral or documentary countering the claim, the claim application could not have been disallowed the prescribed statutory claim of Rs. 4,00,000/- (4 lacs). 7. In the result, the order under appeal is set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 8. The respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,00,000.00 (Rupees four lacs) with simple interest @ of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim application till payment. 9. The aforesaid payment be made within a period of three months from today.