JUDGMENT :

M.G. GIRATKAR, J.

1. This appeal is under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Application No. OA (llu)/ NGP/187/2016 dated 31-12-2018.

2. The case of the appellants in short is as under:-

(i) One day prior to incident, deceased Santosh Dadarao Devtale had gone to Nagpur to meet his relative. On 15-8-2016 in the morning, deceased was returning from Nagpur to Sewagram. He boarded the train. When the train reached near Sewagram Railway Station, deceased accidentally fell down from the train and died on the spot. On the memo of Station Master, Sewagram, Police Station, Sewagram attended the spot and brought the deceased in MGIMS and Kasturba Hospital, Sewagram, Wardha for postmortem. The GRP, Sewagram had given information of incident to the appellants. Thereafter Sewagram Police Station has prepared the spot panchanama and inquest panchanama. Dead body was handed over to appellants after conducting postmortem.

(ii) The appellants filed claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The said claim was resisted by the respondent. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that deceased was not bona fide passenger and no untoward incident was taken place. The defence of railway was that deceased was run over by unknown train when deceased was crossing the railway route. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants.

3. Heard learned Advocate Shri Bambal for the appellants. He has submitted that the claim cannot be denied only on the ground that deceased was not having journey ticket. In support of his submission, he has pointed out decision in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, 2018 ACJ 1441. Learned Advocate has submitted that evidence adduced by respondent is after thought. It is contradictory evidence and, therefore, it cannot be relied on.

4. Learned Advocate Shri Bambal has pointed out decision in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, 2008 (2) T.A.C. 777 (SC) and submitted that when two interpretations are possible, the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred.

5. Learned Advocate Shri Bambal has further pointed out judgments of this Court in First Appeal No. 774/2012, Union of India vs. Kamla Ramdas Bhasme and Another decided on 22-4-2015 and First Appeal No. 305/2010 Union of India vs. Dhurpatabai W/o Kondiba Gomsale and Another decided on 1-7-2017.

6. Heard learned Advocate Shri N.P. Lambat for the respondent. He has submitted that there is no evidence to show that deceased was travelling from Nagpur to Wardha by any train. Journey ticket was not found on the spot of incident, therefore, deceased was not bona fide passenger. Deceased was crossing the railway route. That time, he was run over by unknown train. Therefore, Claim Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Evidence on record shows that appellant no. 1 was not eye witness of the incident. She could not state as to what happened. She has stated in her affidavit that her husband had gone to Nagpur. He was returning by train by purchasing ticket. The ticket was lost in the accident. He died due to accidental falling from the train. In her crossexamination, she has admitted that she was not eye witness of the incident. She was not knowing by which train her husband was coming.

8. Learned Advocate Shri Lambat has submitted that the witness examined by the respondent, namely, Loco Pilot Shri Sanjay Sahu stated in his evidence that one unknown person was run-over between railway track at K.M. No. 765/17 at Seloo Road Sewagram. The said unknown person came under the running train by his own act for suicide. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was crossing the railway route and he died.

9. It is pertinent to note that the appellant no. 1 was not accompanying the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be expected from her t