JUDGMENT :

1. This is an Appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the judgment dated 30/11/2017 whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the Application filed by the Appellants for compensation under section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. The Appellants who are the children of the deceased – Motiram Dongre (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimants’) had filed an Application for compensation under section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. It was the case of the Claimants that on 22/01/2012, their father Motiram Dongre had boarded Hussain Sagar Express (Train no.12701) at CST station to proceed to Solapur. The Claimants had alleged that the deceased had travelled in second class compartment under a valid ticket. It was alleged that the deceased fell down from the train at Kurduwadi station. He sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital and upon examination, the Doctor declared him dead. The claimants sought statutory compensation under section 124 of the Railways Act contending that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that his death was caused in an untoward incident.

3. Respondent denied that the deceased was bonafide passenger and that his death was caused in an untoward incident. The Respondent claimed that the deceased had come under Train No.12701 Down Express while he was crossing the track at Kurduwadi.

4. The Tribunal, upon considering the evidence adduced by the claimants held that the deceased was not holding a valid train ticket and was not a bonafide passenger. The Tribunal relied upon the DRM’s Report and held that the deceased had come under the train while crossing the track. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the death of the deceased was not caused in an untoward incident and hence, dismissed the Application. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the Claimants have filed this Appeal.

5. Mr. Vasant More, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the statement of AW1 – Sanjay Dongare that the deceased had boarded the Train No.12701 at CST to go to Solapur has not been denied. He further submits that the inquest panchanama also records that the deceased had fallen from the running train. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claimants have discharged the burden by filing the affidavit of AW1 and that the Respondents have not rebutted the said evidence. He therefore contends that the Claims Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and/or that his death was not caused in an untoward incident. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v/s. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Balram Sudakaji Sakpal and another v/s. Union of India 2021 (6) Mh.L.J. 374.

6. Per contra, Mr. T.J. Pandian, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that AW1 had not witnessed the accident and that his evidence does not support the case of the Claimants. He submits that the inquest panchanama indicates that no train ticket was found on the person of the deceased. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submits that the DRM’s Report clearly indicates that the deceased had expired while trying to cross the railway track. He also submits that the body of the deceased was found at Kurduwadi which falsifies the contention of the claimants that he was traveling to Solapur. He submits that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that the death was caused in an untoward incident and hence, they are not entitled for compensation under section 124 of the Railways Act.

7. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

8. It is not in dispute that the body of the deceased was found lying along the railway track at Kurduwadi. He had sustained injuries and he was taken to the hospital and was declared dead. The question which falls for consideration is whet