1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants-claimants against judgment and order dated 24/9/2004 passed in Claim application No. 77/OAII/ RCT/NGP/2003, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the applicantsclaimants in entirety.

2. Mr.Bambal, learned Counsel for the appellants, in support of appeal, made following submissions:

(i) The Tribunal has erred in holding that the applicants who are father and mother of deceased Gokul Jadhav are not the 'dependents' for claiming compensation.

(ii) The Tribunal further committed an error in holding that deceased Gokul Jadhav was not bonafide passenger when there was enough evidence on record. The Tribunal further erred in holding that the deceased was negligent by standing at the door of the local train and that therefore he had indulged in rash and negligent act which deprives the claimants from making any claim for compensation. Finally, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

3. Per contra, Mr. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that there was no material on record__ to come to a conclusion that deceased Gokul Jadhav was bonafide passeng