Judgment : 1. Appellant Union of India, through South Central Railway, Secunderabad has challenged legality and validity of order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Claim Application No. 18/OA-II/RCT/NGP/1997 granting compensation of Rsw. 4 lacs to the respondents together with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. Facts are that Deepaji Pawar, father of applicant no. 1 and husband of applicant no. 2, was travelling from Osmanpur to Devalgaon-Awachat by Daund-Purna Passenger train on 4.7.1996. At Devalgaon Station, driver of the Train suddenly applied brakes which resulted in jerks and Deepaji fell down and died. 3. Respondent Railway Administration denied the claim on the following grounds – (i) Deceased Deepaji was not a bonafide passenger; (ii) Applicants have not given complete particulars; and (iii) Deepaji might have fallen down due to carelessness. 4. First Information Report, Accidental Death Report, Inquest Panchanama, Spot Panchanama, Postmortem report etc. were duly proved on record. Ticket No. 0167 held by deceased Deepaji and recovered from his person was produced on record. AW 2 Dnynoba deposed that deceased had purchased ticket in his presence and Deepaji was travelling with him. From all this, it cannot be said that Deepaji was not a bonafide passenger. First contention of the railway administration is, therefore, not acceptable. Original claimants filed their affidavits by giving particulars of their relationship with Deepaji. Nothing contrary was brought on record by the appellant to show that the relationship as was claimed, did not exist. Second contention of the railway administration is too out of place. AW 2 Dnyanoba deposed that he was co-passenger with Deepaji and both of them were sitting inside the apartment. He also was getting down at Devalgaon Railway Station. He deposed that train stopped short of station distance and when it again started, there were jerks due to which Deepaji fell down. He further deposed that he wanted to make complaint, but the Station Master was not available and the driver to whom complaint was made, did not respond. This evidence has gone unchallenged. Railway Administration has thus failed to prove its allegation that Deepaji Pawar might have died due to carelessness and negligence. No exception is pleaded and proved by the Railway administration to escape liability to compensate the victim who was bonafide passenger and who met with untoward incident. 5. This evidence has gone unchallenged. Railway Administration has thus failed to prove its allegation that Deepaji Pawar might have died due to carelessness and negligence. No exception is pleaded and proved by the Railway administration to escape liability to compensate the victim who was bonafide passenger and who met with untoward incident. 5. In the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.