JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter 1987 Act') has been filed by the appellants- claimants (hereinafter 'the claimants') challenging the judgment dated 2-9-2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal (herein after 'the Tribunal'). Thereby the claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of it being fraudulent in nature. 2. The facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition on 8-2-2002 under Section 16 of the 1987 Act read with Section 125 of the Railway Act, 1989 for a compensation of Rs. 8 lacs for the death Bhera Prajapati, on 21-5-2001 alleging that he accidentally fell from train No.171, Ahmedabad Falna while travelling on a valid ticket from Mori Bera to Jawai Band. The claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that deceased purchased any valid ticket for journey on the train from Mori Bera to Jawai Band as alleged. The other ground for dismissal of the claim petition was that affidavits of witnesses, belonging to Bali District Pali, attested at Bhanupura in Madhya Pradesh, were ex-facie unreliable as the distance between Bali and Bhanpura was of more than 300 k.m., and no reasonable explanation was put forth as to why is so happened. Another ground for the dismissal of the claim petition is that neither the incident of the accidental falling of the deceased Bhera Prajapati on 21-5-2001 from the train in issue was informed to the railway authorities on the same day or even the next day, nor any passenger travelling in the compartment nor even the purported eye witness did pull the chain. Noting the alleged "happenstance" as claimed the learned Tribunal found little comfort in relying on the untrustworthy evidence of the claimants. The claim petition filed by the claimants was thus dismissed with a direction to initiate proceedings against claimant and her witness Mohan Ram under Section 193 IPC for rampant perjury on oath before the Tribunal. 3. Hence this appeal. 4. Shri S.C. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased Bhera Ram Prajapati had on 21-5-2001 boarded train No.171 (Ahmedaba-Falna) at Mori Bera to travel upto Falna after purchasing a valid second class ticket, along with co-passenger Mohan Ram. 3. Hence this appeal. 4. Shri S.C. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased Bhera Ram Prajapati had on 21-5-2001 boarded train No.171 (Ahmedaba-Falna) at Mori Bera to travel upto Falna after purchasing a valid second class ticket, along with co-passenger Mohan Ram. He submitted that due to heavy rush of passengers, the deceased was compelled to stand near the gate of the compartment. Thereafter as a result of a jerk/jolt in the running train he fell off from the train near Km 525/2 between Mori Bera and Jawai Band and died. Counsel further submitted that one Rati Ram, railway gate-man, while he was patrolling the railway track found Bhera Prajapati unconscious near the Rail track. He thereupon informed the Station Master Mori Bera about the injured person. The deceased was removed to GRP Primary center for treatment, and thereafter referred to the MDH Hospital Jodhpur on 22-5-2001, where he died while undergoing treatment on 24-5-2001. The Railway Station Master Mori Bera also informed the incharge of the Government Railway Police Chowki Falna about the incident. The Panchnama was prepared under Mrag No.9/2001 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and after due post mortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the claimants on 24-5-2001. 5. Counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a gross illegality in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger on train No.171 as allegedly no ticket was purchased by the deceased. It was submitted that the Tribunal wrongly failed to consider the evidence of the co-passenger Mohan Ram. The Tribunal also failed to consider, counsel submitted, the fact that the deceased was removed from the railway track by Railway gate-man himself, under information to Railway Station Master Mori Bhera and then onwards to MDH Hospital Jodhpur, where he died after two days of the accident. The news item of the accident was published in the news paper on the next day. It was emphatically albeit without much conviction submitted that therefore there was no doubt that the deceased died due to an accidental fall from the running train and the claimants as his dependents entitled to compensation. The news item of the accident was published in the news paper on the next day. It was emphatically albeit without much conviction submitted that therefore there was no doubt that the deceased died due to an accidental fall from the running train and the claimants as his dependents entitled to compensation. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others [ 2008 ACJ 1895 ] and the judgment of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Smt. Puspa Majumdar & Others v. Union of India, Misc. Appeal No.23/2008 decided on 15-1-2014. A perusal of the judgments however indicates that judgments relied upon are distinguishable on facts. 6. Mr. A.K. Bhargava, Railways counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal in its detailed judgment has found the claim to be wholly fraudulent, rightly dismissed it and justly ordered the prosecution of the claimants for perjury. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order 2-9-2004 passed by the Tribunal. 8. In my considered opinion, the claimants have miserably failed to prove that a valid ticket was purchased by the deceased for the alleged journey from Mori Bera to Jawai Band. It cannot be presumed that the deceased was in fact if at all travelling in the train in question; what of having died from an accidental fall during the journey. Further the claimants have also failed to proffer a reasonable explanation for their affidavits and of the witnesses being attested and verified at Bhanpura (Madhya Pradesh) while they were residents of Bali, District Pali, Rajasthan. The affidavits in evidence filed in support of the claim petition were thus plainly manufactured. It was also a fact that the claimants did not examine the gate-man who was alleged to have first raised a hue and cry about the alleged "untoward incident" and facilitated the removal of the deceased from the place of the accident to hospital. The claimants did also not give out any reason for filing the claim petition on 8-2-2002 for the accident of 24-5-2001, after a period of about eight months. The claimants did also not give out any reason for filing the claim petition on 8-2-2002 for the accident of 24-5-2001, after a period of about eight months. So far as the claimant's witness Mohan Ram is concerned, aside of his affidavit being attested inexplicably at Bhanpura (M.P.) while he was a resident of Bali in Rajasthan, he cannot be treated a reliable witness, as his conduct at the time of alleged accident was wholly unnatural. If at all he was travelling with the deceased, he would have tried to help the deceased by pulling the chain of the train and informing the railway authorities of the accident. He did neither of the most obvious things a companion of a passenger would do in the event of a passenger falling off a running train. Further his affidavit in evidence before the Tribunal was filed in English of which he knew not a word admittedly being a casual labourer. Nothing in the affidavit indicated that he had been explained the affidavit's contents in Hindi and had comprehended it all. He was thus quite palpably a got up witness-wholly unreliable. With Mohan Ram's evidence before the Tribunal completely shaken and demolished, the case of the claimants about the deceased having purchased a valid journey ticket for travel on Train No.171 as a bonafide passenger was bereft of any support and rendered unsustainable. Further, the Station Master Mori Bera, Railway station in his evidence stated that on 21-5-2001 no ticket was sold for Train No.171 from Mori Bera Railway station to Falna-the train by which the deceased Bhera Prajapati and the claimant's witness Mohan Ram had allegedly travelled as bonafide passengers from Mori Bera to Falna. The testimony of the Station Master was based on the Daily Ticket Collection Register made officially in the course of business immediately after a train leaves the station. He remained unshaken in his cross examination and roundedly refuted the suggestion by counsel for the claimants that there could have been mistake in the Daily Ticket Collection Register, which was produced as Exhibit-R-1 before the Tribunal and duly proved. In my considered opinion on the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has committed no illegality, perversity, or error apparent on record in dismissing claim petition filed by the claimants. 9. In my considered opinion on the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has committed no illegality, perversity, or error apparent on record in dismissing claim petition filed by the claimants. 9. The Tribunal has in the shocking facts of the case rightly directed the prosecution of the claimant and witness Mohan Ram under Section 193 IPC. False claims are rife, public monies are stolen through such claims and genuine claims are subjected to suspicion of the Judge's experiences of false claims. Aside of the immorality of false claims they are an obstruction in the administration of justice by over crowding the dockets of the Tribunal/court. Such claims evidence disrespect of the judicial process, which must be respected. Courts/Tribunals should no doubt liberally entertain genuine claims under socio-economically beneficial legislation but must be equally quick to visit fraudulent ones with serious consequences. But in the instant case, the claimant, poor and widowed as she appears to have been unwittingly drawn into filing a false claim by the "operators"-the crooks. It is such persons that the Tribunals/Courts should address as they are the actual pollutants in the streams of justice. They plan, they manipulate, they promise to manage. They execute the conspiracy of false claims and they take away the substantial part of the "loot"-(the awards of compensation) the claimant left with the bare minimum for loss of a dear one and the soiling of their soul by untimely death of the bread earner. The purported witness-Mohan Ram-who stood up in front for the false claim before the Tribunal appears to be a part of such an organised gang of crooks. Hence while granting indulgence of the court to the claimant, I would direct the order of the Tribunal to the extent of the prosecution of the claimant is set aside-not for any legal infirmity but for reasons of her widowhood and poverty. The direction of the Tribunal for prosecution of Mohan Ram shall however stand. His prosecution be expedited if still pending and be forthwith initiated if not yet so done for reason of the pendency of this appeal. 10. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the appeal stands dismissed on merits with the caveat that the claimant shall however not be prosecuted for reasons of her widowhood and poverty.Appeal Dismissed. *******