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 passenger and the burden of proof to prove that he was bonafide passenger was not discharged by the claimants.

4. The deceased was in fact knocked down by engine of the train while crossing the railway track, and therefore, for such an act compensation is not payable under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

5. The Tribunal has rightly found that the respondent-claimants did not lead satisfactory evidence that they were dependents of deceased Gokul Jadhav. The documents filed by the claimants were xerox copies, and therefore, were not admissible in evidence, and therefore, no interference with the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal can be made. Finally, learned Counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the rival parties at length and I have also gone through the impugned judgment and order. At the outset I find that finding recorded by the Tribunal that the applicants are not dependents though they are his father and mother is absurd. The fact that they were mother and father was proved by way of affidavit-evidence and the xerox copy of ration card issued by Tahsildar showing their names. It was not the case of the respondents-railways that those documents were forged. In absence of any specific challenge by the respondents by way of evidence or otherwise to the said Government document namely; ration card issued by Tahsildar, Umarkhed and the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Kurli, that applicants are father and mother of the deceased, I have hardly any reason to disbelieve that the claimants are the parents or the mother and father of deceased Gokul Jadhav. The said finding on issue No. 1 being perverse, is therefore, set aside.

7. The finding that Gokul Jadhav was not bona fide passenger is again perverse. As a mater of fact, AW-2 Sudam was examined on behalf of claimants whose testimony was hardly shaken by the respondents in the cross examination and on the contrary in the cross examination it was brought out that he personally saw deceased Gokul buying railway ticket from the counter. The respondents, however, did not lead any evidence. The documents of inquest panchanama, A. D. report and postmortem report clearly indicate that deceased Gokul fell from the train and received injuries. Therefore, merely because railway ticket was not found of the person of deceased Gokul, the Tribunal could not have jumped to a conclusion that he was not a bona fide passenger. It is noteworthy that the Tribunal has quoted that part of evidence of AW-2 that AW-2 had personally seen deceased Gokul buying the ticket from railway counter. But, still the Tribunal answered issued No. 2 against the respondents-claimants.