JUDGMENT :

Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14/02/2018 passed by the Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Application No.OA(IIu)/NGP/2015/0322, thereby dismissed the claim of the claimants.

3. The facts of the present case are as under :

The Manik s/o Krishnurao Bomble is deceased in the present matter. On 12/01/2015, the deceased was travelling from Partur to Manwat Road by train to meet his relatives. After meeting with his relatives, he came to Railway Station Partur and purchased a railway ticket of passenger train bearing No.C40771903 of Rs.10/- to go to Manwat Road Railway Station in the evening and boarded an unknown train at Partur Railway Station, as his village is nearby Manwat Road Railway Station. When the train was approaching Manwat Road Railway Station, the deceased came near the door of the train to alight at Manwat Road Station and fell down from running train at Km No.272/7-8 due to strong jerk and died on the spot. Therefore, the dependents of the deceased filed a claim petition for compensation for an untoward incident and demand for Rs.4,00,000/- compensation is made against Railway as at the time of incident, the deceased was the bonafide passenger of the train.

4. The respondent/Railway Authority appeared in the matter and resisted the claim by filing written statement on the ground that it is not untoward incident and the deceased was not bonafide passenger of the train and therefore, prayed for rejection of claim application.

5. After considering the matter before it the learned Tribunal held that the deceased was moving near the scene of incident as he belongs to the same village and was run over by the alleged train while crossing the track/walking along the track, therefore, the deceased was neither a bonafide passenger nor was involved in an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act and therefore dismissed the claim of the claimant. The aforesaid judgment is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

6. It is contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that the railway has not lead any documentary evidence or any eye witness showing that the deceased was dashed by any train or there was any memo from any loco Pilot of any train that some person were dashed by his train or committed suicide. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that valid railway ticket from Partur to Manwat Road was recovered from the body of deceased which shows that deceased was bonafide passenger of the train. The learned Counsel further contended that this incident occurred due to the sole negligence of Railway and therefore, the railway is liable to pay the compensation for this untoward incident. Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal needs interference of this Court.

7. The learned Counsel for appellants relied on Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. reported in 2008 ACJ 1895.

8. The learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered this fact that the appellant has failed to establish that the deceased was boarded on the train and the death of the deceased was occurred due to an accidental fall amounting to an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railway Act and it is also rightly taken into consideration that the place of residence of the deceased is not too far away from the place of incidence. There was every possibility that deceased was moving near the scene of incident at the time of occurrence of incidence and appropriately rejected the application of the appellants which needs no interference.

9. I have heard both the parties. From the record, it appears that there is railway ticket recovered from the deceased which was duly verified. It was from Partur to Manwat Road. As such, there is