S.K.Katriar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.1999, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, in Application No. OA-9700215 Kaushalya Devi V/s. Union of India, whereby the claim application of the claimants (the respondents herein) for compensation on account of the death of Ram Singar Singh has been allowed and compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of judgment has been allowed. The Union of India through the Indian Railways has preferred this appeal.

2. One Ram Singar Singh had boarded 5203 Up during the night intervening 4.7.1996 and 5.7.1996 at Hajipur for a destination which is not clear from the records of the case. Soon after the train had started moving he fell down from the train due to the rush and push. He was taken to Siwan Hospital and ultimately to Patna where he died. The post-mortem was done on the body and inquest report was prepared on the date of the death itself. Thereafter, his widow and children who were minors on the date of the accident, filed an application u/s. 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, claiming compensation for the death of Ram Singar Singh.

3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The claimants examined Lakshman Paswan, a co-villager who claimed that he was travelling by the same train from Hajipur to Gorakhpur. The Tribunal has held that Ram Singar Singh was a bona fide passenger with a proper railway ticket and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation within the meaning of sec. 123 (c) (2) of the Act with interest.

4. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant (Union of India) has submitted that the finding recorded in the impugned judgment to the effect that the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a proper railway ticket is against the weight of the evidence on record. He has also submitted that the evidence of Lakshman Paswan is unworthy of reliance.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has submitted in opposition that the Tribunal in its well considered judgment has arrived at the correct conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. In the circumstances of the case, no better evidence could have been brought on record to establish that he was a bona fide passenger. He relies on the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court in Union of India V/s. Jshna Kanhar 2001 ACJ 871 (Orissa).

6. In view of the contention of the parties, the following issues arise for consideration in this appeal:

(i) In the facts and circumstances of the case whether or not presumption arises in favour of the deceased that he was a bona fide passenger?

(ii) Whether or not the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he was travelling with a proper ticket?

7. Having considered the submissions and having given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this appeal ought to be allowed. The Tribunal has misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence on record. sec. 123 of the Act is relevant in the present context and is set out herein below for quick reference:

123. Definitions.-In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) accident means an accident of the nature described in sec. 124;

(b) dependant means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely: (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;

(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a predeceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;

(iii) a minor child of a predeceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;

(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.

(c) untow