ORDER Delay has already been condoned during hearing. 2. With the consent of learned counsel matter is being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. This is an appeal preferred against order dated 12th May, 2011 passed in Claim Case No. OA 00045/2002 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dismissing the claim for Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation against death of applicant’s mother Urmila Devi said to have been caused by an accidental fall from Train No. 599 Patna-Gaya Passenger on 17/18 November, 2001 near the Jehanabad Railway Station, while she was traveling from Patna to Mukhdumpur. 4. By filing short written statement claim was contested mainly on the ground of deceased not being a bonafide passenger and the railway does not admit that she fell down from the Train from Train No. 599 Patna-Gaya Passenger. 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that Claim Tribunal has dismissed the claim on the grounds emerging out of his own imagination without any evidence adduced on behalf of the railway even the written statement is cryptic one containing nothing specific. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent railway supported the findings arrived at by the Claim Tribunal. 6. There is no dispute that on 17/18 November, 2001, deceased died in a rail accident near Jehanabad and the dead body was recovered in crumbled stage and on the intimation of the authorities at Jehanabad Railway Station case no. 28/2001 was instituted. No doubt, the informant simply stated finding of dead body of a unknown lady aged about 50-55 years crushed by any train and body was lying at UP Loop Line vide Exhibit – A3 and police after investigation vide Exhibit – A4 submitted its final report holding deceased falling down from the train. The dead body was identified by Krishna Deo Singh and Bidya Sharma, both not examined, resident of nearby place of Jehanabad Railway Station. But, the inquest report, Exhibit – A5 prepared in presence of Bimlesh Kumar Applicant Witness No. 2 and one Arbind Kumar not examined. 7. Only two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the claimant appellant AW1 Ajit Kumar is none else than son of the deceased neither an eye witness nor accompanying the deceased, who had gone to Patna for treatment of wife of her nephew Bimlesh Kumar AW2 and while she was returning, the untoward incident occurred. 7. Only two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the claimant appellant AW1 Ajit Kumar is none else than son of the deceased neither an eye witness nor accompanying the deceased, who had gone to Patna for treatment of wife of her nephew Bimlesh Kumar AW2 and while she was returning, the untoward incident occurred. Though, she had valid ticket but could not be located due to body being crushed and he got every information about the incident from his cousin AW2 Bimlesh Kumar, who has come to support the claimant’s version and stated about accompanying the deceased with his wife and seeing falling her from the train. Though, in cross examination, paragraph 12, he admits that he could not see the deceased falling from the train, his wife another person allegedly accompanying the deceased and this witness since she was the person for whose treatment deceased had gone to Patna has not been examined. The Claim Tribunal has discarded evidence of this witness on some technical grounds and his absence at the time of identification of the dead body. This witness has produced the medical prescription and pathological report of his wife dated 17.11.2001 which corroborates his statement of his wife being examined by the Doctor at Patna, and there is nothing to disbelieve him that she was coming from Patna on the fateful day. No doubt, had his wife also been examined, the claimant’s version could have more support. 8. As contended by learned counsel for the respondent that it could have been a case of run over, but there is no material to show at such an odd hours a lady aged about 50-55 years resident of a place nearing railway station ahead of Jehanabad intervening at least one railway station known as Jehanabad Court shall be available at the place of occurrence to be run over by a train. On the other hand, there is at least one witness and other circumstances, on behalf of the claimant indicating that she was coming from Patna for her home situated nearing Railway Station, Makhdumpur. 9. The condition of the dead body was not as such from where railway ticket could have been located and besides the above Division Bench of this Court in a case “Smt. Kaushalaya Devi & Ors. 9. The condition of the dead body was not as such from where railway ticket could have been located and besides the above Division Bench of this Court in a case “Smt. Kaushalaya Devi & Ors. vs. Union of India, Through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P.” reported in “ 2008 (3) PLJR 711 ”, wherein, paragraph – 5 of the judgment reads as such: – “5. Railways Act provides prosecution of persons entering Railway Stations without valid journey ticket or platform ticket. That makes its abundantly clear that without a ticket, either for undertaking a journey or for the purpose of visiting the platform, no one is entitle to be within the precincts of a Railway Station. That the person was in the precincts of the Railway Station would, therefore, logically have a presumption that he had a ticket for him. That he did not have a ticket was obligatory on the part of the Railway Administration to prove. ……………………………... .” 10. The said decision has subsequently been followed in a case between “Chandarik Sah @ Chandrika Sah & Anr. vs. The Union of India represented through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur (Bihar)” reported in “ 2012 (2) PLJR 823 ”, wherein, the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, as claimed, has been awarded with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimant. 11. And likewise, the cases referred to above, in the case in hand also no evidence has been adduced by the Railway. Hence, impugned order is set aside. Appeal stands allowed. The Railway (respondent) is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs) to the claimant appellant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of actual payment.