ORAL ORDER I. A. No. 6435 of 2012 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in preferring this appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. For the reasons mentioned in this petition, the delay is condoned. 4. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. 5. The applicant-appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.7.2011 passed in Case No. O.A.000141/2001 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna by which his claim for compensation has been rejected on the ground that there is discrepancy in the deposition of the witnesses and also on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove that his son Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train. 6. The appellant filed the claim petition under Section 125 of the Railway Act read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- due to the death of his unmarried son Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary while he was traveling in Train No. 4083 UP on 16.4.2001 after purchasing ticket from Naugachia Station to Barauni Junction. During the journey due to huge rush and jurk, he fell down from the train at the outer single of Naugachia station and succumbed to the injuries. 7. Written statement was filed on behalf of railway stating therein that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the railway and does not come under the purview of Section 123 (C) of the Railway Act and the claim petition is fit to be rejected. 8. After framing of issues the evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of respondent. 9. The appellant- Raj Kumar Chaudhary(A.W. 1) filed an affidavit in which it has been stated that on 17.4.2001 his son after purchasing ticket was traveling in the train. His ticket and his bag containing money and cloth were also lost. He has also been cross-examined. In paragraph 7 of his cross-examination, he has stated that he got information on 17.4.2001, one day after the occurrence. It appears that in the affidavit it is a typing mistake. He has also stated that the deceased was traveling in train after purchasing ticket. He has also been cross-examined. In paragraph 7 of his cross-examination, he has stated that he got information on 17.4.2001, one day after the occurrence. It appears that in the affidavit it is a typing mistake. He has also stated that the deceased was traveling in train after purchasing ticket. A. W. 2 Mridula Devi, the mother of the deceased has also stated that on 16.4.2001 her son, Rajesh Kumar Chaudhry-deceased had to go to Barauni for appointment in Boarder Security Force. He boarded the train at Naugachia railway station after purchasing the ticket by his relative Phufa (A.W. 3). The train started and at some distance due to huge rush he fell down and succumbed to his injuries on the station. A. W. 3 has also stated that on 16.4.2001 the deceased-his nephew Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary was going to Barauni. After purchasing a ticket from Naugachia to Barauni Junction he (AW 3) handed over to him. Rajesh boarded in the Mahananda Express Train No. 4083, the train started. He returned to his house. Due to heavy rush in the train Rajesh fell down from the train. Both the witnesses have been cross-examined. They have denied the suggestion that the deceased did not fall down from the train and died. A. W. 3 has denied the suggestion of the respondent that no ticket was purchased by him for the deceased. Documentary evidence has also been adduced. Ext. A-4 is the Memo No. 930 dated 17.4.2001 showing that an unknown person fell down from the train and lying dead on the station and officer-in-charge of Naugachia, G.RP has been directed to remove the dead body. Ext. A-5 is the FIR of Assistant Rail P.S. Naugachia U.D. Case No. 4 of 2001. Ext. 6 is the final report submitted by the Railway Police after investigation showing that the passenger fell down from rail at Naugachia station was identified as Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, son of Raj Kumar Chaudhary (applicant). Ext. 7 is the inquest report. It also shows that the deceased fell down from the train. Ext. 8 is the certificate issued by Mukhiya that the parents of Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary were dependent on him. Ext. 9 is the copy of the post-mortem report which also shows that the deceased got injury lacerated wound face from forehead to chin and brain material was also found exposed and protruded. 10. Ext. 8 is the certificate issued by Mukhiya that the parents of Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary were dependent on him. Ext. 9 is the copy of the post-mortem report which also shows that the deceased got injury lacerated wound face from forehead to chin and brain material was also found exposed and protruded. 10. It is settled principle of law that the onus lies upon the railway to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train. The railway has not been able to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train. The appellant has been able to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It is also settled principle of law that minor discrepancies regarding the date of occurrence will not make a ground to deny the claim of the applicant if other materials are available in support of the claim. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The claimant is entitled to get Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation due to the death of his son Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 30.8.2001 to this date @ 6 per cent per annum and @ 9 per cent per annum till its realization. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed. 13. The parties will bear their own costs.