1. The appellant / General Manager, Central Railways, filed this appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short the Act, 1987) questioning the award dated 17.11.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur bench, Nagpur whereby the appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in equal share to the respondents nos. 1 to 5 (original applicants nos. 1 to 5).

2. Facts are thus: On 29.3.2004 while travelling by train no.2151 Pune-Howrah Express, Pintho Tudu met with an accident by falling from the running train. The dead body was seen in between Parsodi – Nagpur Railway Line in Jamtha Shivar near Pole No.821/28. It was alleged that he was holding valid ticket. The applicant no.1 widow and applicant nos.2 to 5 – children, filed the claim petition for award of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

3. The appellant resisted the petition. It is disputed that the death of Pintho Tudu was on account of untoward incident. It was further alleged that the deceased was not holding a valid ticket and therefore, not entitled to any amount of compensation.

4. The learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues for its determination. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were examined. The appellant examined one witness. After considering the evidence brought on record, the learned Tribunal held that, while travelling by Pune-Howrah Express the deceased met with an accident and died. The evidence adduced by the appellant, to the effect that the deceased was not holding valid ticket, was disbelieved by the learned Tribunal.

5. Mr. Lambat, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant took me through the evidence brought on record. It is his contention that the four tickets produced by the respondents and the endorsement of break-journey thereon, point out in all probability that none of those tickets was purchased by or for the deceased. Further, he invited this Court's attention to the evidence of Pravin Patre (R.W.1) to point out that Train No.2151 did not pass through the track where the dead bound was found. Therefore, his contention is that the Tribunal committed serious error of facts in allowing the claim petition.

6. Mrs. Pathade, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that deceased died in an untoward incident and dead body was found lying near Railway Track. In that light of the matter, the appellants are bound to pay the compensation under the principles of strict liability. According to her the learned Tribunal was right in relying upon the four passenger tickets produced on record. She therefore, claimed for dismissal of the appeal.

7.The points arise for my consideration are as under:

1] Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident?

2] Whether the deceased was authorized Railway passenger?

3] Whether the order granting compensation passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?

8. The Merg Report D-32 available on record reveals that on 30.3.2004 at about 1045 hours, Rambhau Raut while discharging his duty as an employee of the Railways, saw a dead body of unknown person. It was lying by the side of the Railway-line. He therefore, submitted Merg Report. The Spot Panchnama at D-34, speaks that in Railway accident one passenger had died and his dead body was lying by the side of Railway Line. Accordingly, inquest was conducted over the dead body and D-36 is the inquest report. At the end the report recites that an unknown person aged 25 years was cut by train. The Postmortem note points out number of surface wounds, in the nature of lacerated wounds, fracture of bones of arms and joints. Injuries were antemortem. The cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage due to head injuries and crush injuries over left elbow joint and upper 1/3rd both bone of left forearm.

9. Under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the “untoward incident” means the accidental falling of any passenger from a tra