Judgment : Valmiki J. Mehta, J (Oral) CM 11855/2012 (for condonation of delay) For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 36 days in filing the appeal is condoned CM stands disposed of. FAO No.291/2012 1. Challenge by means of this first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is to the impugned judgment dated 28.2.2012 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent-appellant who is the dependent of the deceased Sh. Ajay. Sh. Ajay died in an untoward incident stated to have occurred on 15.3.2010. The deceased left behind his parents, his two minor daughters and a minor son. The wife of the deceased had already expired on 25.5.2008. The deceased Sh. Ajay, at that time, was running a Kirana shop at Gurgaon. The Railway Claims Tribunal has held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train. The Railway Claims Tribunal further relied upon the evidence of cousin brother of the deceased one Sh. Amit who was also traveling in the same passenger train called TR train. Sh. Amit had deposed that he and deceased Ajay climbed on different compartments of the said train, however, the deceased Ajay fell down from the train. 2. The Tribunal has given the following findings while allowing the claim petition: “After perusal of record, I observe that identification & factum of fall of Sh. Ajay (deceased) has been established by the document AW1/6 i.e. brief fact report of the police. I observe that in the DRM report R1, it is clearly mentioned that Sh. Ajay (since deceased) fell down from the train, while he was trying to board the running train & for that Railway Administration is not responsible as the incident occurred due to the mistake & careless ness of the deceased himself. But no reliable & other plausible evidence was adduced in this regard on behalf of the respondent in order to prove the negligence on the part of deceased. The evidence of RW1 Sh. Phool Kuwar, Guard is also contrary to the DRM report. So, the balance of convenience goes in favour of the applicants. Hence, it is clear that the respondent failed to establish the contra by adducing any reliable evidence, which is accepted in the eye of law. The evidence of RW1 Sh. Phool Kuwar, Guard is also contrary to the DRM report. So, the balance of convenience goes in favour of the applicants. Hence, it is clear that the respondent failed to establish the contra by adducing any reliable evidence, which is accepted in the eye of law. The legal position of law is very much clear as it has been held in Union of India, South Central Railway Vs. Kuru Kundu Bala Krishnaiah, 2004 ACJ 529 (A.P.) as under: “accidental falling, would include a passenger trying to alight a train, board a train or any other like action, and hence they would be covered by untoward incident as specified in Section 123© of the Act.” The document R1, placed on record by the respondent also to some extent speaks volumes regarding the “untoward incident” & so, the authority titled (supra) is applicable in this case. I observe that the compensation claims, normally are the relief granted by the welfare legislation for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of either the injured or the deceased persons and the dependant family members. While appreciating the overall evidence, the Tribunal is expected to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective & such appreciation should, in my opinion, be based on common sense & realities. The provisions contained U/s 124A of the Railways Act, are beneficial legislations and strict proof of the matter is not required. From the side of the respondent, there is no evidence to show that Sh. Ajay (deceased) had either committed suicide or died as a result of self inflicted injury. The respondent failed to establish the contra by adducing any reliable evidence, which is accepted in the eye of law. The contents of the documents mentioned (supra) and the evidence of the witness with regard to the accident in question fully prove the case of the applicants, on the basis of maxim “Res ipsa loquitor” which means “the things speak for itself”. In my opinion, the present case falls under the definition of Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act & the applicants are entitled to get compensation U/s 124A of the Railways Act, on the ground that the proviso (a) to (e) of Section 124A are not applicable in the present case. Hence, I record my opinion on the issue mentioned (supra) in the affirmative and in favour of the applicants. Hence, I record my opinion on the issue mentioned (supra) in the affirmative and in favour of the applicants. Issue No. 2: Regarding issue No. 3 the applicants have placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Deva Singh as AW1/1. Sh. Deva Singh, in his examination in chief as well as in the Claim Application stated that Sh. Ajay (deceased) was his son, who was married, Smt. Gyano Devi, mother of the deceased, is alive & Smt. Rekha, wife of his son Sh. Ajay has expired two years back. It is also