JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 54 of 1987 to set aside the order made in O.A.No.191 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dated 03.02.2014.) 1. The first respondent, as claimant filed the claim petition in O.A.No.191 of 2013 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- contending that the accident on 14.11.2012 was an "untoward incident" as defined under section 123 (C) (2) of the Railways act 1989 and that he was a bonafide passenger in the train. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, the first respondent died and his only daughter has been impleaded as the second respondent. The claim was opposed on the ground that the accident to the first respondent was not an untoward incident and that he was not a bonafide passenger. It was claimed that the accident happened only due to the sole negligence of the claimant and therefore, the Railway is not liable to pay compensation. 3. The Tribunal, on consideration of materials placed before it, gave a finding that the first respondent herein was a bonafide passenger and that the incident was an untoward incident and he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-. The liability of the Railways is under challenge in this Appeal. 4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant could not be a bonafide passenger as he did not file the ticket along with his application to prove that he was a bonafide passenger and therefore the conclusion that he was a bonafide passenger is not correct. 5. The second contention is that the claimant travelled sitting on the foot step of the compartment putting the leg outside the compartment and therefore, the act of the claimant will not come under the definition of untoward incident and therefore, the compensation ought not to have been awarded. 6. Whether these two contentions are acceptable is the issue to be considered. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the claimant has stated in his application itself, that his journey ticket was lost while he was shifted from the place of occurrence to the hospital. 6. Whether these two contentions are acceptable is the issue to be considered. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the claimant has stated in his application itself, that his journey ticket was lost while he was shifted from the place of occurrence to the hospital. In the evidence of the claimant, the claimant has stated that he purchased a combined ticket for himself and his friend and it was purchased for a sum of Rs.110/- for the journey from Dindigul to Tirunelveli. The Tribunal has considered the fact that the purchase of a ticket has been mentioned in the General diary extract of the police, as per exhibit A-1. 7. Considering the possibility of the ticket having been lost during transit in 108 ambulance and considering the evidence of the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the claimant was a Bonafide passenger and therefore, this finding does not require any interference. 8. Yet another issue to be considered is whether the accident to the claimant was an untoward incident. The version of the claimant was that the train was fully crowded and he travelled near the door of the compartment and when the train stopped at Nalli, another train came in the adjoining track and due to the pull and push, he fell down and sustained injuries. The very same version has been spoken to by the claimant to the police which finds a place in 161 Cr.P.C. statement and also in the diary extract. 9. The fall of the claimant is admitted by the appellant but only the cause of the fall is under dispute. According to the Railways, the claimant was standing on the footboard of the train and when the train stopped at the station, he tried to get down on the off-side of the train, during which time he got misbalanced and lost control, as a result of which he fell down. 10. To prove this version of the Railways, no one has been examined on the side of the Railways. The statement of Duraipondy a co-passenger was available in the report of the D.R.M. but the Railways has not chosen to examine Duraipondi. 11. 10. To prove this version of the Railways, no one has been examined on the side of the Railways. The statement of Duraipondy a co-passenger was available in the report of the D.R.M. but the Railways has not chosen to examine Duraipondi. 11. The Tribunal has taken note of the implication of non-examination of the said Duraipondi and has arrived at the correct conclusion that the incident took place was an untoward incident and therefore this finding do not require any interference. 12. The first respondent herein is the claimant and died on 29.11.2014 and the second respondent as the daughter of the deceased had been impleaded by the order of the court. There is no issue regarding survival of the cause of action on the part of the second respondent. Under these circumstances, the benefit of the Award in favour of the 1st respondent would pass for the benefit of the second respondent and it is ordered accordingly. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.