JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 by the defendant (union of India – Railways) against the order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal/GB/Guwahati in O.A.No.IIu 26/GHY/2010/0019. By impugned order/judgment, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part of the plaintiff (claimant) by decreeing his suit/claim and awarding a total sum of Rs. 4 lacs by way of compensation for the death of his mother. So the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether tribunal was justified in decreeing in part the plaintiff’s suit and was in turn justified in passing the decree for Rs. 4 lacs by way of compensation for the death of his mother who died in the railway accident? Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant (defendant/Union of India- Railways) and on perusal of the record of the case, I am of the considered opinion, that the appeal has no merit and hence it is liable to be dismissed in limini. Here is a case where the mother of the respondent (plaintiff) – Md. Rustom Ali while travelling in passenger train (5743 Up Intercity Passenger train) on 19.01.2010 as one of the bonafide passenger on valid ticket fell down from the moving train and succumbed to the injuries. The respondent being his son filed a claim petition (suit) before the Tribunal against the appellant (union of India – Railways) out of which this appeal arises and claimed a compensation for his death. Though it was contested by denying the factum of accident etc., the tribunal did not accept the railway’s defense and decreed the plaintiff’s claim. It was held that deceased was travelling on the train as a bonafide passenger after purchasing the ticket, that he fell down while the train was moving and lastly he was entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 4 lacs by way of compensation from the railways in his capacity as deceased‘s son. Though these findings are assailed by the railways in this appeal, but having perused the evidence, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and decree. In my considered view, the plaintiff was able to discharge his burden in proving the factum of accident and the manner in which it occurred. Though these findings are assailed by the railways in this appeal, but having perused the evidence, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and decree. In my considered view, the plaintiff was able to discharge his burden in proving the factum of accident and the manner in which it occurred. It was proved with the aid of FIR and the final report of the police authorities. By these two documents, it was in clear terms revealed that the deceased was travelling in the train and he fell down while travelling. Since the railway authorities did not lead any evidence in rebuttal except to deny the factum of accident, such evasive denial in the written statement without there being any evidence was not held sufficient to deny plaintiff’s claim. It was especially when there was documentary evidence available on record to accept the case of the plaintiff. The Tribunal believed plaintiff’s version and, in my view, rightly so. So far as the award of quantum of compensation of Rs. 4 lacs to plaintiff is concerned, in my view, no interference in this finding is also called for. Looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 80 years, an award of Rs. 4 lacs cannot be said to be in any way on higher side. It is just and proper. Though learned counsel for the appellant (Railways) vehemently contended that there was no evidence to prove the accident and therefore the appeal should be admitted for hearing but I am afraid, I can accept this submission. In the light of what I have held above, this submission stands rejected. Issuing notice to respondent would only add another hardship to the victims as he will have to attend the case and spend money in its prosecution. Indeed looking to the short controversy which otherwise had no arguable point, the Railways (union of India) should not have filed the appeal against the impugned order of the Tribunal and instead should have paid the compensation to respondent who has waited for 4 years to receive. This case reminds me of the subtle observations made by Justice M.C. Chagla in a case reported in AIR 1954 Bombay 50, (Firm Kaluram Sitaram –vs- The Dominion of India) wherein, the learned Chief Justice in somewhat similar facts in his distinctive style of writing, held: “(d). This case reminds me of the subtle observations made by Justice M.C. Chagla in a case reported in AIR 1954 Bombay 50, (Firm Kaluram Sitaram –vs- The Dominion of India) wherein, the learned Chief Justice in somewhat similar facts in his distinctive style of writing, held: “(d). Practice- State and citizen –Technical pleas. When the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as an honest person.” In the present case, the railways did not have a valid defense and even if they claimed to had, then also, they failed to prove it in accordance with law. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed in limini. The appellant is directed to deposit the awarded compensation in Tribunal within 3 months from the date of this order under intimation to respondent to enable him to withdraw after it is deposited. No cost.