JUDGMENT : Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. 1. By filing the present misc. appeal, a challenge has been made to the impugned judgment and award dated 13.05.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur [for short 'the learned Tribunal'] in Original Application No. OA-II-184/2016, by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that the claimants-appellants (hereinafter referred as 'the claimants') filed an application before the learned Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act of 1987') read with Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- stating therein that on 26.04.2016, the deceased Harimohan commenced his journey from Hindaun City to Gangapur City in Dehradun Express with a valid second class railway journey ticket. It was further stated in the claim petition that the deceased while travelling fell down from the train at Gangapur City railway station and came underneath the train and cut. After the incident, FIR bearing No. 15/2016 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. It was further stated in the claim petition that at relevant time of journey, the deceased was having the valid ticket, but he lost the same during the course of incident. The deceased was a bona fide passenger, hence, the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest. 3. The respondent-Union of India submitted its reply denying the averments made in the claim petition and it was stated in the reply that the dead body of the deceased was found on Line No. 3 in the yard and no ticket was found from the possession of the deceased. It was also stated in the reply that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train and the alleged incident indicates that the deceased had committed suicide. Hence, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues and all the four issues were decided against the claimants by saying that the deceased was neither the bona fide passenger, nor his death had occurred due to an untoward incident as a result of an accidental fall from the passenger carrying train. 5. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 13.05.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law as the same suffer from the error apparent on the face of the record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the onus of proof was on the Railway Administration to prove that the passenger was not carrying a valid journey ticket. Counsel further submits that the claimants have proved the fact from their oral evidence that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died while falling from the train. Hence, they are entitled to get compensation. 7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the claimants and perused the material made available to the Court. 8. After carefully examining the entire material available on record, it is clear that there is no material or evidence on the record to arrive at a conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train-in-question. Primarily, the onus is upon the claimants to prove their claim. Here in this case, no such evidence is available on the record, as the claimants have not produced any evidence to show that the deceased had in fact purchased a ticket for journey and he was proceeding in the train. The claimants have failed to prove the onus that the deceased was holding a valid ticket when the alleged incident took place. 9. It is a settled position of law that the provisions of Railways Act are applicable only when a passenger suffers injury or death in an untoward incident and his family members are entitled to seek compensation provided such person was a bona fide passenger having a valid ticket. That means that either on his body or in his possession such ticket should be found at the time of accident, which is valid for journey in that particular train for that particular date. If that is not found, then the reasonable presumption is that he was either not travelling or he was travelling without ticket. Thus, under these circumstances, such person cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. 10. If that is not found, then the reasonable presumption is that he was either not travelling or he was travelling without ticket. Thus, under these circumstances, such person cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. 10. To sum up the conclusion that emerges is that the claimants have failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train as alleged by them. Hence, they are not entitled to get any relief under the provisions of the Act of 1987. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. All the pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.