JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Union of India under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') challenging the order dated 23.11.01 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in OA-II- 47/98, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs with interest @ 9% per annum to the respondents-claimants. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondents had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the said Act, on the ground that Shri Kailash Chand Pareek (deceased) husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 was travelling in Second Class in Train No. 192 Jaipur-Kota Fast Express on 30.11.97 and he died as a result of falling down from the said train. The said claim petition was resisted by filing the written statement denying the accident in question and also contending interalia that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record awarded the compensation as mentioned herein-above. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. A.K. Bhargava for the appellant that there was no evidence produced by the respondents to prove that the deceased was travelling in the train in question and had died as a result of falling down from the train. He also submitted that the deceased was not even the bonafide passenger and, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to claim any compensation under Section 124A of the said Act. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. Akhil Simlote for the respondents has submitted that the Tribunal having considered all the evidence on record has rightly awarded the compensation, which has already been received by the claimants and, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned award. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the respondents-claimants had examined the witnesses in support of their contentions that the deceased was travelling in the train in question. However the said witnesses were not cross-examined by the appellant-original respondent. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the respondents-claimants had examined the witnesses in support of their contentions that the deceased was travelling in the train in question. However the said witnesses were not cross-examined by the appellant-original respondent. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the Train No. 194 on 30.11.97. Though, it is true that any valid ticket was not found from the deceased at the time of occurrence of the incident, it is required to be appreciated that the ticket might have been misplaced when the deceased had fallen down from the train. As rightly pointed by Mr. Simlote for the respondents, from the provisions contained in Section 124A of the said Act, the claimants, who are the dependents of the deceased were entitled to the compensation as the deceased had allegedly died as a result of an untoward incident i.e. falling down from the train. 6. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has awarded the compensation, which does not call for any interference. The learned counsel Mr. A.K. Bhargava for the appellant having failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******