One P. Narasimha Rao, husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 to 4, boarded a Train, bearing No.6039 - Ganga Kaveri Express, at Vijayawada, on the intervening night of 4th and 5th January, 1997, to go to Warangal. He accidentally fell from the train at Mahaboobabad and died, while undergoing treatment. The appellants filed O.A.A.No. 47 of 1997 before the Secunderabad Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal). It was pleaded that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident. The respondent opposed the claim, by filing written statement. The appellants were put to strict proof of the facts pleaded by them, including the fact that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, through its order, dated 04-12-2007.

Hence this appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was no dispute, as regards the fact that the deceased was travelling in Ganga Kaveri Express, and that he has fallen and died, while the train was in motion. He contends that the evidence of A. W -2 and the Pointsman of Mahaboobabad cabin, clearly established that the death was due to accidental fall. He submits that the only ground on which the Tribunal rejected the claim was that, the ticket held by the deceased was not valid for that particular train. Learned counsel contends that the view taken by the Tribunal is untenable in law.

3. Sri B.H.R. Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the deceased has fallen from the train, on account of his gross negligence, and the Railways cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. He further submits that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, inasmuch as the ticket held by him, was not valid for that train.

4. The Tribunal framed three issues for its consideration, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. They are,

(i) "Whether the Applicant is dependent of the deceased?

(ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?

(iii) Whether the accidental fall as alleged is not an untoward incident?

5. Issues 1 and 3 were answered in favour of the appellants. The finding on issue No.3 reads as under:

"The above facts leave no doubt that the deceased fell down from the train as the train was on the run and as a result of the injury died in hospital".

6. The only ground on which the Tribunal rejected the claim was that the ticket held by the deceased was not valid for the concerned train.

7. Therefore, it needs to be seen, as to whether the deceased was a passenger of the train at all.

8. Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short' the Act') provide for payment of compensation to passengers, in the event of their sustaining injuries, or their legal heirs, if they die, in an accident, or untoward incident. Under both the provisions, the liability arises, whether or not, there has been any wrongful act, or negligence, or default, on the part of the railway administration. The two ingredients that are necessary to attract the liability are, that the accident, or untoward incident, must have occurred to a passenger train, and that the victim was a passenger in the train. The word' passenger' is defined under sub-section (29) of Section 2 of the Act, as to mean, "a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket".

9. In the instant case, the deceased was travelling in Ganga Kaveri Express. The fact, that he has fallen from it and sustained injuries, was spoken to, by none other than the pointsman, who was on duty, at the relevant point of time at Mahabubabad. A. W .2, by name, B. Subba Rao, deposed that, himself and the deceased were travelling from Vijayawada to Warangal, to collect money from some persons. It is stated that he purchased two tickets from Vijayawada to Warangal, and both of them were travelling in Ganga Kaveri express. They appear to have boarded in a general compartment of that train. The witness said that, he noticed the absence of the d