Judgment : 1. This appeal was filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short the RCT Act of 1987) against the award dated 28.8.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in O.A. No.11/53//2005 titled as Smt. Bardi Devi & Ors. Vs. Union of India through General Manager, North West Railway, Jaipur. By the impugned award, claim of the appellants under Section 16 RCT Act, 1987 r.w. Section 125 of Railways Act, 1989 was dmissed by the RCT, Jaipur. 2. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Kailash Prasad Meena was said to be travelling Jaipur-Revari Fast Passenger Train from Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur Railway Station to Baskho Railway Station on 13.12.2004, as per the claimants. It was also submitted by the claimants that he was having Ticket No. 71753 and so he was a bonafide passenger at the time of the accident when he met with death. 3. It is not in dispute that a Second Class Ticket No. 71753 recovered by GRP from the pocket of the dead body of Kailash Prasad Meena. Claimants had argued that the deceased was a bonafide passenger on the Train at the time of the accident, but the other party has examined Ramesh Chand Verma, Sub Station Superintendent, Gandhi Nagar Railway Station, Jaipur and he has stated exhibiting record that the Ticket No. 71753 was never sold on 13.12.2004 by the Indian Railway and rather that Ticket was sold only on 4.11.2004 and so the said Ticket was not valid for journey on 13.12.2004 and so Kailash Prasad Meena was not a bonafide passenger on the train when he met with an accident. 4. For the aforesaid reach claim of the claimants was dismissed by the RCT, Jaipur. In this appeal, appellants have relied upon following rulings:- (1) Union of India Vs. Hari Narayan Gupta & Anr. reported in AIR 2007 Raj. 38 In this case, it was held that in such type of claims, burden will lie on Railway to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 was referred in this case. (2) Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. reported in (2008) SCC 527 Not only the appellants, but the respondent also have relied upon this ruling. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 was referred in this case. (2) Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. reported in (2008) SCC 527 Not only the appellants, but the respondent also have relied upon this ruling. In this case, it was held that if a bonafide passenger falls down from a train and he is having a valid Ticket or Pass then it will be deemed to be an untoward incident and so under Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989, the legal representatives of the deceased will be entitled to claim compensation. Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989 was also referred. This defines “Passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid Pass or Ticket. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines “untoward incident” to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as follows:- “124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.-When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to- (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “passenger” includes- (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.” 5. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “passenger” includes- (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.” 5. Respondent has also relied upon; (1) Hardayal & Ors. Vs. Union of India – S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2584/2013 decided on 26.8.2013 (2) Narendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India – S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.879/2011 decided on 13.9.2013 (3) Khamani Bai & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. - S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2661/2004 decided on 13.5.2014 6. All aforesaid three cases by Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur bench Jaipur In all the aforesaid cases, it was held that if Railway has proved that deceased was not a bonafide passenger on the train at the time of accident then he could not be paid any compensation under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989. In the case in hand, respondent has proved beyond doubt before the Tribunal that deceased Kailash Prasad Meena was not a bonafide passenger on the train at the time of accident in which he met to death. He was travelling on a bogus ticket of back date so he was not entitled to any compensation and so the RCT, Jaipur has rightly dismissed his claim. consequently, the award dated 28.8.2009 of RCT, Jaipur is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Tribunal immediately along with its record.