Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J. – The appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Application No.OA:9800169, whereby the aforesaid claim application was dismissed. Hence, the applicant (appellant herein) of the said claim case has preferred this appeal.

2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that the son of applicant while travelling by Train No.3288 Dn.-Patna-Tata Express fell down from the moving train at Mokama Railway Junction at about 8.30 P.M. on account of heavy rush of the passengers trying to get down from the train. The deceased was trying to reach his seat in reserved compartment, however, he could not reach and fell down from the train sustaining serious injuries. Thereafter he was taken by the G.R.P. personnel to the hospital, but he could not survive and died in course of treatment. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was held at Barh Sadar Hospital. Before that U.D. Case No.18 of 1998 (Ext. A-1) was registered and inquest report (Ext.A-2) was prepared. The police submitted final report stating therein to the effect that the deceased fell down from the train resulting in his death. The applicant-the father of the deceased had filed the aforesaid claim application claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four lacs) as prescribed under the Rules. Later, the mother of the deceased was impleaded as party through an amendment petition.

The Tribunal upon considering the evidence on the record found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and further found that he fell down from the train resulting in his death. The Tribunal, however, disallowed the claim of compensation on the ground that the applicants could not establish their relationship with the deceased.

3. Mr. Pravin Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence/materials on the record to establish the relationship of the applicants with the deceased. It is firstly submitted that the applicant filed the claim application as father of the deceased. Later, he filed an affidavit stating the fact that the deceased was his son. Another affidavit was filed on behalf of the sister of the deceased stating therein that she was also travelling along with her brother who fell down from the train and died. Besides, on perusal of the police report (Ext. A-1) and post-mortem report (Ext. A-3), it would appear that the name of the applicant was mentioned as father of the deceased. Notwithstanding the above, it is further submitted that the Railway administration did not adduce any counter evidence and in its written statement, there was no specific denial of the statement made in paragraph 15 of the claim application, wherein it is specifically stated that the applicant is the father of the deceased. As a matter of fact, the Railway administration did not challenge the relationship. The only plea taken was that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It is accordingly submitted that the claim ought to have been allowed.

4. Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Railway administration, on the other hand, supports the order of the Tribunal and submits that the applicant did not establish his relationship with the deceased and as such, the claim application was rightly dismissed. It is further submitted that the applicant had filed affidavit claiming himself to be the father of the deceased as also an affidavit was filed by Mrs. Priya Saji claiming herself to be the sister of the deceased, but they did not come forward for cross-examination and as such, the Tribunal rightly did not give any reliance on the affidavits of the applicant as also of Mrs. Priya Saji, the sister of the deceased.

5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it would appear that the deceased was a bona fide passenger is not in controversy now, as the Tribunal has foun