ORDER The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal Act’) has been preferred against an order dated 13-09-2011 passed in Case No. OA 00081 of 2007 by the learned Member (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘Claims Tribunal’). By the said order, learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim for payment of compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lacs). 2. Short fact of the case is that in the month of June, 2007, the appellant had preferred an application under Section 125 of the Railway Act, 1989 read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, claiming compensation of rupees four lacs, in view of death of father of the appellant, namely; Umakant Pandey, who died on 21-02-2007 in a railway accident. It was disclosed that on 21-02-2007, father of the appellant, who was an employee in the office of the Executive Engineer, Water Division, Raghopur (Supual), after purchasing a valid railway ticket of IInd Class Mail/Express had boarded Jansewa Express (Train No. 5210 Dn.) at Hajipur Junction. He was to go to Raghopur. While he boarded the train, due to heavy rush of the passengers, he fell down from the running train and received multiple grievous injuries. Thereafter, the injured was carried to the Sadar Hospital, Hajipur and on the same date, he died. Subsequently, the post mortem examination was done on the dead-body of the deceased on the same date. Alongwith the claim application, the claimant/appellant brought on record copy of U.D. Case, Death Observation Report, Post Mortem Report, Train Ticket and other relevant documents. Affidavit of claimant and one more witness was also filed before the Claims Tribunal. Before the Claims Tribunal, four issues were framed. However, the learned Claims Tribunal decided Issue No. 3 i.e. ‘As to whether the case was under Section 123 (c)(ii) of the Railway Act, 1989, as untoward incidence’, was decided in favour of the appellant, however; other three issues were decided against the claimant/appellant and finally, the claim petition was dismissed by the impugned order. 3. Sri Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger and he was traveling with a valid railway ticket. 3. Sri Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger and he was traveling with a valid railway ticket. He submits that once sufficient evidences were brought on record to show that deceased was a bona-fide passenger and the Tribunal had accepted the fact that it was a case of untoward incidence, the learned Claims Tribunal was required to allow the claim petition. He submits that A.W.2, who had accompanied the deceased up-to Hajipur Railway Station, in his affidavit, has categorically stated that the deceased had purchased a ticket in his presence from the booking counter at Hajipur for a journey to Raghopur. The deceased was in hurry to catch the train, since the train was about to move and thereafter A.W.2 returned back from the railway station. The affidavit of A.W.2, namely; Brajesh Kumar @ Brajesh Kumar Tiwari has been marked as Ext. ‘A2’. He submits that he was extensively cross-examined. Even in the cross-examination, he had stated that the deceased was going from Hajipur to Raghopur, through Jansewa Express. In his cross-examination, nothing could be extracted by the respondent/railway to create doubt on his evidence. After the accident, the Station Superintendent of the East-Central Railway, Hajipur had issued Memo i.e. Ext. ‘A3’. As per Ext. ‘A3, it is evident that the Station Superintendent of Railway had intimated Officer-in-charge, R.P.F., Hajipur that about 10:20 A.M., one passenger, at the time of boarding train no. 5210 Dn., had fallen and received injuries and thereafter, he was carried to Sadar Hospital by the help of local people. While emphasizing on Ext. ‘A3’, it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the fact that deceased had received injuries in a railway accident and died subsequently, has been established. On the same date, the injured was examined by the doctor in the Sadar Hospital, Hajipur. The doctor had found railway ticket in the possession of the injured. The said railway ticket was produced by the claimant, which has been marked as Ext. ‘A-13’ i.e. a ticket from Hajipur to Raghopur dated 21-02-2007. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that on the same date as per the fardbeyan of the appellant, an U.D. Case was registered and during inquiry, the police found that deceased had died due to injuries in the railway accident. ‘A-13’ i.e. a ticket from Hajipur to Raghopur dated 21-02-2007. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that on the same date as per the fardbeyan of the appellant, an U.D. Case was registered and during inquiry, the police found that deceased had died due to injuries in the railway accident. The claimant/appellant had also brought on record inquest report, which was prepared in the hospital and same has been exhibited as Ext. ‘A6’. Besides those documents, Death Certificate was got marked as Ext. ‘A9’. The certificate issued by the Circle Officer to show the dependency is marked as Ext. ‘A10’. An office order of the Executive Engineer, Raghopur Division, Supaul to show that deceased was a Government employee and also his emoluments was got exhibited as Ext. ‘A12’. Photocopy of I-Card, issued by the Election Commission of India in favour of the appellant, was marked as Ext. ‘A14’. It was argued by Sri Murari, learned counsel for the appellant that even though there were number of documentary evidences available on record besides oral evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal only on the basis of unsustainable doubt regarding the difference of timing mentioned in the ticket i.e. Ext. ‘A13’ and timing in Ext. ‘A3’ i.e. Memo issued by the Station Superintendent of Railway, has rejected the claim of the appellant. He submits that it is true that in Railway Ticket (Ext. ‘A13’), time of issuance of ticket is mentioned as 10:29 A.M. dated 21-02-2007, whereas, Ext. ‘A3’ i.e. Memo issued by the Station Superintendent indicates that about 10:20 A.M., one passenger had fallen down at the time of boarding the train no. 5210 Dn (Jansewa Express). He submits that on such meager contradiction, the Claims Tribunal was not authorized to reject the claim of the claimant/appellant on the plea that deceased was not a bonafide passenger and accordingly, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondent/railway to pay claim compensation amount of rupees four lacs. 4. Sri Rajeshwar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/Union of India, through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that after the death of the injured passenger on the same date i.e. on the date of accident at about 3:30 P.M. (21-02-2007), an inquest report (Ext. ‘A6’) was prepared. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that after the death of the injured passenger on the same date i.e. on the date of accident at about 3:30 P.M. (21-02-2007), an inquest report (Ext. ‘A6’) was prepared. In the inquest report, nothing has been mentioned regarding recovery of railway ticket. It was argued that had there been any railway ticket in possession of the deceased, such fact would have been mentioned in the inquest report. He submits that from the material on record, it is evident that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, but to justify this stand at subsequent stage, the claimant/appellant had brought on record a railway ticket i.e. Ext. ‘A13’. He further submits that falsity of the claimant’s plea of availability of the railway ticket is proved from the fact that railway ticket (Ext. ‘A13’) itself indicates that on 21-02-2007, it was issued at 10:29 A.M., whereas, as per the Memo of Station Superintendent (Ext. ‘A3’), accident had occurred at about 10:20 A.M. Learned counsel for the respondent on aforesaid premises has tried to persuade the Court that the deceased was not having any valid railway ticket; he was not a bona fide passenger and as such, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim case, which requires no interference. 5. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record, including the Lower Court Record. On the basis of evidences on record, the learned Claims Tribunal had decided the issue regarding untoward incidence i.e. Issue No. 3 in favour of the appellant and as such, there is no reason to further examine and discuss evidences on this issue. In this case, the most important issue, which has been adjudicated by the Claims Tribunal against the Claim Case, is the issue as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not. In respect of this issue before proceeding, it would be appropriate to notice the evidence of A.W.2, namely; Brajesh Kumar @ Brajesh Kumar Tiwari, son-in-law of the deceased, who in categorical term, has stated that on 21-02-2007, he was at the Hajipur Junction with his father-in-law and in his presence, the deceased had purchased train journey ticket from the booking counter at Hajipur Junction. Immediately after the ticket was purchased, they noticed that the train, which was to be boarded, was giving whistle to start and thereafter the deceased rushed to the train. A.W.2 has further stated that soon thereafter, he returned back. The Memo issued by the Station Superintendent, East Central Railway, Hajipur (Ext. ‘A3’) categorically indicates that at about 10:20 A.M. one passenger had fallen while boarding the train no. 5210 Dn. and received injuries, who was carried to the Sadar Hospital, Hajipur by local residents. The time, which has been indicated, is not specific, but the Station Superintendent has indicated rough time of accident i.e. about 10:20 A.M. Those facts were corroborated and indicated in the police report i.e. Ext. ‘A5’. It is true that in inquest report, there is no mentioning about the recovery of train ticket, but at the same time, in the inquest report, the police officer, who had prepared the inquest report, has not bothered to indicate recovery of anything from either pocket of pant or shirt of the deceased. Only fact regarding recovery has been mentioned that the deceased was bearing coat and pant. It is the case of the claimant/appellant that during course of examination, the doctor had found railway ticket and that railway ticket was provided to the claimant by the doctor and due to inadvertence, the police had not mentioned anything about the recovery of the ticket or number of the ticket. So only on the ground that fact regarding non-recovery of ticket in inquest report that too in view of preparation of perfunctory inquest report, claim of the appellant regarding recovery of ticket may not be overlooked. Now the question is as to whether only on the ground of difference of few minutes, as incorporated in the ticket and time mentioned in Memo of Station Superintendent, Hajipur, the whole claim was required to be rejected or not? It is a fact that the railway ticket, which has been produced on behalf of claimant and marked as Ext. ‘A13’ makes it clear that it was issued at 10:29 A.M., but fact remains that the timing of the accident, as mentioned in the Memo of Station Superintendent, Hajipur (Ext. ‘A3’), was not conclusive evidence to prove exact timing of the accident, rather the Memo describes the time as about 10:20 A.M. So, variation of few minutes in between timing of ticket (Ext. ‘A3’), was not conclusive evidence to prove exact timing of the accident, rather the Memo describes the time as about 10:20 A.M. So, variation of few minutes in between timing of ticket (Ext. ‘A13’) and Memo of Station Superintendent, Hajipur (Ext. ‘A3’) would not be sufficient to brush aside the whole case of the claimant that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 6. In view of the whole materials on record and negligible contradictions in two documents, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal was not justified in deciding the issue that deceased was not a bona fide passenger, which is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, it is held that deceased was a bona fide passenger. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, the order impugned dated 13-09-2011 passed by the learned Member (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna bench, Patna in Case No. OA 00081 of 2007 is, hereby, set aside and appeal stands allowed. 8. The respondent/Union of India, through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur is, hereby, directed to pay the claim amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lacs) to the claimant/appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The respondent-railway is further directed to pay the claim amount with simple rate of interest @ 4% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case i.e. 12-06-2007 till the date of payment. 9. With above observations and directions, the appeal stands allowed.