JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 15.2.2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in O.A.-II-21/2002, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the appellants-claimants. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants-claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased Babu Lal, had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal alleging inter alia that the deceased Babu Lal was traveling by Kota-Bhopal Passenger Train from Baran to Chabra on 18.2.2001 and he fell down from the running train, which resulted into his death. The appellants-claimants therefore claimed compensation of Rs. 6.00 lacs along with interest from the respondent on account of death of deceased Babu Lal. The said claim petition was resisted by the respondent Railway Administration by filing its written statement contending inter alia that the deceased was neither having a valid railway is ticket nor was a bonafide passenger of the train and he died only on account of being run over by the goods train. 3. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, has dismissed the claim petition vide impugned order, against which the present appeal has been filed. 4. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that the wife of deceased i.e. appellant no. 1 had stated in her statement that her husband was traveling in the train in question and fell down from running train. However, the Tribunal has mis-appreciated the evidence on record by holding that the deceased was not the bonafide passenger and he died on account of being run over by a goods train. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal being illegal, deserve to be set aside and appeal may be allowed as prayed for. 5. However, the learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently submitted that the Tribunal having rightly appreciated the evidence, the court should not interfere with in the said order. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the appellants-claimants had examined the appellant no. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the appellants-claimants had examined the appellant no. 1 before the Tribunal to prove that her husband was traveling in the train which was going from Baran to Chabra and he had purchased the journey ticket, but no such documentary evidence has been produced by the appellants. As against this, the respondents had examined Asstt. Station Master, who had stated inter alia that when he was on duty on 19.2.2001, he had received an information from the driver of Kota Goods train that one person had died on account of being run over by a goods train. He has stated that entry to this effect was made by him in the charge memo which is on record and marked as Annex.R/1. The Tribunal after considering the said evidence has held that the deceased was not traveling in the train, and that he was not the bonafide passenger, but he died on account of being run over by a goods train. The appellants-claimants having failed to prove that the deceased was bonafide passenger and had died in an untoward incident within the ambit of Section 123(c) of the Railway Act, 1989, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition of the appellants. 7. The court does not find any illegality or infirmity much less perversity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The present appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******