(Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section 23(1) of the RCT Act against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2008 passed in O.A.No.21/2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, dismissing the application filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act for payment of compensation.)

1. The appellants (applicants before the Railway Claims Tribunal), being the mother and brothers of deceased Thippeswamy, call in question the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing their application filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation following the death of Thippeswamy in an untoward accident. The said accident occurred when he was getting down the train at Chikkajajur Railway Station and the train suddenly moved on account of which Thippeswamy fell down, sustained injuries and died.

2. It was the case of the appellants before the Railway Claims Tribunal that Thippeswamy had a valid ticket purchased by him at Chikkajajur Railway Station and when he boarded the train at Chikkajajur and when he was trying to get down the train, all of a sudden, the train move leading to Thippeswamy falling down and later died on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident. It was also the case of the appellants that the deceased was holding a second class train ticket in respect of train No.581. The facts are also not in dispute that the ticket bearing No.05725 was issued at Chikkajajur Railway Station on 2.1.2005 for the train that leaves at 11.45 hours. It is on these facts that the appellants approached the claims tribunal for compensation.

3. The respondent railway administration took up the contention before the claims tribunal that though the deceased was holding a valid ticket to travel as a passenger, the said ticket pertained to train No.582 and not for train No.581 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in respect of train No.581. The Railway Claims Tribunal accepted the said contention of the respondent railways and held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger because, he had been issued a ticket in respect of train No.582 and not in respect of train No.581. It was, therefore, held by the Tribunal that the deceased was not holding a valid ticket for his travel by train at the relevant time of the accident and he cannot, therefore, be considered as a bonafide passenger in respect of the train in question and, as such, the application was rejected. The Tribunal also held that for being a passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act, he must be a person travelling with a ticket relating to the concerned train.

4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim application, the appellants-applicants are before this court in this appeal and I have heard the learned counsel Shri R.Krishna Reddy for the appellants and the learned counsel Shri N.S.Sanjay Gowda for the respondent-Union of India. I have also perused the impugned order as well as the record of this case.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the view taken by the Railway Claims Tribunal was totally erroneous and contrary to the very provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and it was contended that so long as it is not disputed that deceased Thippeswamy was holding a valid ticket to travel by a train as a passenger, it is immaterial as to from which train he fell down so long as the case falls within the ambit of Section 124-A and outside the exceptions mennoned in the said section. Referring to the definition of “passenger” both in the explanation to Section 124-A and to the definition at Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, the submission made is that deceased Thippeswamy satisfies the requirement of being a passenger and, therefore, the claims tribunal could not have dismissed the claim application.

6. It is further argued in this connection that when a platform ticket holder is also eligible for compensation under Section 124-A th