JUDGMENT :

RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

1) The present first appeal has been filed by the original claimants u/s. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the impugned judgment dated 24/9/2021, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (for short ‘the Tribunal’), dismissing the Claim Application No.OA (II u)/MCC/0893/2014.

2) The appellants filed Claim Application before the Tribunal for granting compensation on account of death caused to Natthu Rama Shinde, who died in the railway untoward incident on 6/6/2012. It was the case of the appellants that on 6/6/2012, Natthu Rama Shinde, the husband of the appellant no.1, was travelling from Nandurbar to Dondaicha, travelling in Surat Bhusaval Passenger train, and due to sudden jerk in the train, the deceased fell down from the train at Dondaicha Railway Station between Poll No.Km.190-09-08, and died on the spot due to untoward incident. It is further stated by the appellants that the deceased was travelling with valid second class railway ticket.

3) The railway contested the Claim Application by filing written statement, and they raised an objection that there was no untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act. It is further stated that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as ticket was not recovered from his body. Hence, the appellants are not entitled to any compensation.

4) The appellant No. 1 examined herself by stepping into the witness box and in her affidavit, she reiterated the facts as stated in the claim application. She was cross-examined by learned counsel appearing for the railway and to the questions put to her in cross- examination, she has denied the same. The railways did not examine any witness. However, their case was only as regards to trespass and it was not an “untoward incident” and the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

5) The Tribunal dismissed the Claim Application No.OA (II u)/MCC/0893/2014, on 24/9/2021, on the ground that the deceased was not a ‘bonafide passenger’, and that the incident does not fall within the meaning of ‘untoward incident’ as defined u/s. 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. As regards the appellants being the dependent of the deceased, the same was answered in favour of the appellants.

6) Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 24/9/2021, passed by the Tribunal, present first appeal has been filed by the original claimants. The Railways have not challenged the findings on issue of the Appellants being dependent of the deceased.

7) Following points arise for determination which are as follows:-

(a) Whether interference is required in the impugned judgment and order dated 24/9/2021 passed by the Tribunal ?

(b) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the time of the incident ?

(c) Whether the death of the deceased was occurred as a result of an “untoward incident” ?

(d) Whether any compensation is payable to the appellants being the dependent of the deceased ? And interest (if any) payable.

8) I have heard learned counsel of both sides and with their help I have gone through the documents on record.

POINT – (b):- Bonafide Passenger: -

9) Section 124-A of the Railways Act reads as under:-

124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger who has be