JUDGMENT Jaspreet Singh, J. Heard Shri Hari Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the judgment and award dated 14.09.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, passed in Case No.O.A.II/U/168/11, whereby a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- along with 9% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the award submits that there was no material on record to indicate that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that he died on account of untoward incident occurred in an accidental fall from a train. 4. It is further submitted that there is no substantial material nor cogent evidence by which the aforesaid inference could be drawn and for the said reason, the award passed by the Tribunal is bad and deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants while refuting the aforesaid submissions states that there are clear evidence led by the uncle of the deceased, who clearly deposed that he had gone to see off his nephew at Manak Nagar Railway Station where a ticket from Lucknow to Kanpur was purchased in his presence. He had seen his nephew boarding the train. It is also a case that the family members of the deceased received information from the local police that the deceased had fallen from the train which led to his injuries and death and, therefore, the claimants-respondents had visited the King George's Medical College, Lucknow where the deceased was brought dead. It is in the aforesaid back ground, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal concerned. 6. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 7. Insofar as the issue regarding the bonafide passenger is concerned, there is a clear statement of the claimants witness namely Anil Kumar Pal, who in his examination-in-chief dated 18.03.2015 in Para-2 stated that on 27.02.2011, he had gone to see off his nephew where at the railway station he had purchased a railway ticket from Lucknow to Kanpur of Lucknow Memo Passenger Train. In Para-3, he clearly stated that in his presence, the deceased boarded the train and the train had moved towards Kanpur. In Para-3, he clearly stated that in his presence, the deceased boarded the train and the train had moved towards Kanpur. Later, in the said paragraph, it has been stated that the claimants-respondents received information from the local police that the deceased had fallen from the train and sustained injuries and had expired. Even in his cross-examination, there is no material which discredit his testimony regarding the purchase of the ticket and boarding of the train is concerned. The police has also filed a report which clearly indicates towards the death of Shri Umesh Pal on account of falling of the train and having sustained injuries. This statement which remained un-contradicted quite clearly indicates that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 8. Insofar as the accidental fall and untoward incident is concerned, this has been corroborated by the report of the G.R.P. as well as Panchnama which both indicate that the deceased suffered injuries on account of fall from the train. There is no evidence on the contrary by the Railway Authorities. These findings of fact are based on evidence and it cannot be said that they are against the material on record. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the appeal is devoid of merit and consequently, it is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. Any amount deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned to be released in favour of the claimants-respondents. 10. The record of the Tribunal concerned shall be returned forthwith.