Mool Chand Garg, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 06.03.2009 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the appellant filed under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act for payment of compensation on account of death of Sh.Jagdish, who was admittedly a bona fide passenger.

2. According to the appellant, the deceased was a daily passenger and was holder of MST bearing No. 002270 from Khekra to Vivek Vihar. On the day of the incident i.e. 24.07.2007 at about 5.30 p.m. the deceased commuting on the abovementioned route came to Shahdara Railway station from Vivek Vihar but due to the heavy rush he could only hold on to the gate and after the train started, due to heavy rush, jerk, push and pull, fell down from the train and sustained grievous injuries which eventually led to his death on 01.08.2007.

3. The claim was contested by the respondent-Railway Administration by filing a written statement, wherein they have denied that the deceased died due to falling from a running train but instead, the death occurred when the deceased was waiting for the train on the platform and due to the force of the arrival of the train he fell down on the platform and sustained injuries. They have further made a plea that the respondents are protected under Section 124(c) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act as the deceased was negligent and was standing close to the railway line on the railway platform while waiting for the arrival of train.

4. The Tribunal recorded the evidence led by the parties which comprises of the statement made by the appellant as AW-1 and one other witness Shri Anil as AW2 and has also placed on record Ex. AW1/1 to AW2/3. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence has been adduced either oral or documentary but it has placed on record the DRM's report as per ex. R-1 wherein, it is stated interalia that the deceased was standing at the edge of the platform and when the train came at the platform, he fell down and died.

5. While deciding Issue No. 1 in favour of the appellant by holding that the applicant and her aforesaid four sons are the dependants of the deceased, the tribunal relied upon ration card ex. AW1/7 placed by the appellant and the cross-examination of AW-1. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the appellant i.e. the deceased was a bona fide passenger, on the basis of the MST No. 002270 dated 3.07.2007 and the Identity card No. 834489 from Khekra to Vivek Vihar which were placed on record as ex. AW1/5 and ex. AW1/4 respectively. Furthermore the report of Sr. DSO/RPF/ New Delhi to Sr. DCM, Northern Railways, New Delhi, also shows that the MST was recovered from the person of the deceased. Thus in totality of the circumstances, the deceased was held to be a bona fide passenger.

6. That Issue Nos. 3 and 4 were decided together for the sake of convenience. AW1 in her cross examination stated that AW2 had informed her about the incident over the phone. AW2 is also a daily rail passenger from Baraut to Shivaji Bridge and a monthly pass-holder bearing No. 087287 and has stated in his affidavit that he entered the compartment of the train but due to the heavy rush, the deceased was standing near the gate of the compartment and when the train started, he fell down due to the heavy jerk of the train and push from inside the compartment and sustained grievous injury. Under cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that his MST was not valid for Vivek Vihar and stated that though he did not pull the alarm chain he was the one who had lifted the deceased and took him to the hospital and that he was the one who had informed the incident to the police but the police never recorded his statement. Regarding AW2, the tribunal observed that the evidence of AW2 was full off loop holes and implicit reliance could not be placed upon it. Furthermore the contents of DD No. 21 dated 24.07.2007 woul