M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful applicants assailing the judgment dated 5.11.2007 of the III Member of Secunderabad Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad passed in OAA No. 253 of 2001. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/Railways. I have perused the material record.

2. The history of the case, in brief, is this:

The applicants are the parents and the sister of Shaik Samdani Basha, the deceased. They had filed the claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the loss sustained by them on account of the untimely death of the said deceased due to his involvement in an untoward incident, viz., accidental fall from a train. The Railways had resisted the said claim by filing a counter before the Tribunal. At trial, AWs. 1 and 2 were examined on the side of the applicants and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked. While adjudicating the lis, there was no concurrence between the two Members of the Bench. One Member (Technical) had held in favour of the applicants holding that they are entitled to compensation as prayed for. However, the Judicial Member had held that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger and that therefore, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, the matter was referred to a third Member. The third Member concurred with the finding of the Judicial Member and had dismissed the claim application of the applicants. Therefore, the applicants are before this Court.

3. The learned Counsel for the applicants had contended as follows:

The applicants had sufficiently established their pleaded case that the deceased had boarded the Coromandel Express to go to Vijayawada, on that day, having purchased a II Class Ticket, and that when the train had reached KM No. 239/2-4, he had fallen down from the said train at Tettu Railway Station due to a jerk and was dragged on the sleepers and that during the course of the accident, his train ticket was lost. However, the said facts and the evidence adduced were not properly appreciated by the Judicial Member and the III Member of the Tribunal. The finding that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger is not based on accurate consideration of facts and proper appreciation of the evidence. It was erroneously held that the Coromandel Express had no scheduled halt at Tettu Railway Station. It was erroneously presumed that the deceased had tried to alight from the running train and that therefore, the incident is a consequence of a wrongful act, neglect and criminal act on the part of the deceased. The learned Chairman of the Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the fall of the deceased from the train is an accidental fall and ought to have concurred with the finding of the Technical Member instead of concurring with the finding of the Judicial Member. The order, which is impugned, is contrary to the facts pleaded and the evidence brought on record. Therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. Just compensation may be awarded to the appellants/applicants.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways had contended as follows:

The deceased is admittedly holding a season pass to travel between Gudur and Nellore. The incident had admittedly occurred at Tettu Railway Station beyond Nellore. Therefore, the pass he was holding did not authorize him to travel beyond Nellore. At the time of the inquest certain articles were recovered from the dead body and the close by place. But, the II Class Railway Ticket which was allegedly purchased by the deceased for undertaking travel upto Vijayawada was not found either on the wearing apparel of the deceased or at the scene of incident. AW 2, who was examined to establish that the deceased had purchased a ticket is not a truthful witness and he is an interest