1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the RCT Act”) is directed by the Appellants against order, dated 02-03-2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’)in O.A.A. No.52 of 2000 filed under Section 16 of the Tribunal Act read with Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of one G. Balaraju (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) dismissing the claim.

2. The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.52 of 2000. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal.

3. The facts of the case are as follows :

The applicants are the wife and children of the deceased. On 03-02-2000 the deceased aboarded train No.7488 Visakhapatnam - Tirupathi Tirumala Express to go to Tadepalligudem from Nidadavolu to consult an Advocate and in between Nawabpalem and Tadepalligudem railway stations, he slipped and fell down from the train and received injuries and died on the spot due to the jerks of the train. Further, he being a bona fide passenger of the train the applicants who happened to be his wife and children and his dependents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-

4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the pleas of the applicants and further claiming that the deceased did not produce any ticket and necessary measures were not taken at appropriate time and ultimately the respondent pleaded to dismiss the application.

5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal :

1) Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased Gattam Balaraju?

2)Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No.7488 Visakhapatnam – Tirupathi Tirumala Express traveling from Nidadavolu to Tadepalligudem on 02-02-2000?

3)Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train between Navabpalem and Tadepalligudem railway stations?

4)To what relief?

6. On behalf of the applicants, the first of them got examined herself as A.W.1 and got examined Y. Venkata Swamy as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 which happened to be relevant copies of F.I.R., Inquest report, M.R.O. Certificate and Postmortem certificate. Further, on behalf of the respondent, DTC showing issuance of tickets between Nidadavolu to Tadepalligudem railway stations was marked as Ex.R-1.

7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal held the first issue in favour of the applicants and the remaining three issues in favour of the respondent and against the applicants and dismissed the claim on the ground that no ticket was found with the deceased and no eye witness was examined and the evidence given by AWs.1 and 2 lack cogency and in the inquest report no mention was made to the effect that the body was dragged over the tracks or sleepers. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred.

8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that when the deceased entered the platform for the purpose of aboarding the train it is to be presumed that he did so having purchased a valid ticket and it is for the Railways to prove that he was not a bona fide passenger of the train depending upon the relevant circumstances of the case.

9. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether substantial evidence is there to the effect that the deceased purchased the ticket and traveled by the train as a bona fide passenger?

10. The evidence of AWs. 1 and 2 is with regards to circumstances prior to the death of the deceased. According to AW.2 he accompanied the deceased to Nidadavolu railway station and gave send off, he did not speak about purchase of any tickets. Further, as per Ex.A-1 on the same day a report was given to t