Basant, J.

1. Can the compassion underlying Chapter XIII of the Railways Act be alien to the officials of the Railway conducting the cases and the Tribunal which adjudicates the claim? This appears to be the crucial theme arising for consideration in this appeal. We find that the officials of the Railways who conducted the case as also the Tribunal which disposed of the case were woefully lacking the compassion which is the signature tune of the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Railways Act.

2. The appellants/claimants are the young wife aged 25 years and the minor children aged 7 years and 3 years of one Rajesh Kumar, a young man who was found lying dead by the side of the Railway track on the morning of 17-3-2008 at 7 a.m. Local persons passed on the information to the local police. The local police registered a crime under the caption "unnatural death". Investigation was conducted by the local police. The result of such investigation was reported to the Railway officials. Enquiry was conducted in terms of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation on Untoward Incidents) Rules 2003. The DRM report marked as Ext.R1 was submitted after enquiry by the officer of the force authorised to conduct the enquiry. The report was accepted by the Divisional Railway Manager. The report had unambiguously indicated that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. He was returning to Thiruvalla after attending a marriage engagement ceremony at Nilambur. He had boarded the first general compartment of the Malabar Express. He was standing near the corridor. When the train reached at Edappally station the deceased had fallen from the train and died. Railway tickets 1901 and 1902 dated 15-3-2008 and 7591 dated 16-3-2008 were available in his money purse which were seized along with the money purse under the inquest report.

3. Notwithstanding such convincing material, we find that the claim of the claimants was not settled. Claimants were constrained to approach the Tribunal. There was some delay in the claimants approaching the Tribunal. The Tribunal condoned the delay. The claim was surprisingly opposed by the Railways. Attempts were made to pick holes in the claim advanced by the claimants. That the deceased was a bonafide passenger was disputed. It was contended that it was not proved that there was valid ticket to cover the journey of the deceased. Discrepancies regarding the date of the journey were relied on. To cut a long story short the liability was disputed and denied.

4. Claimants were constrained to go for trial. The wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1. The uncle of the deceased who allegedly was travelling in the same compartment was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 though he had boarded the train along with the deceased and was travelling with him in the same train had not known during his journey till it was terminated at Thiruvalla that the deceased was missing. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimants.

5. On the side of the respondents Ext.R1, DRM's report was marked.

6. The Tribunal considered the materials available before it and to our shock and dismay, found that it had not been established that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Much was made out of the alleged discrepancy about the precise date of the untoward incident. The Tribunal further noted that there were incongruities in the evidence tendered by P.Ws. 1 & 2. Their testimony inter se and with regard to their prior statements aroused reservations in the mind of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in these circumstances came to the conclusion that the claimants are not entitled to any payment from the Railways. Accordingly the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order.

7. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the Railways have advanced their arguments. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the officials who conducted the case on behalf of the Railways as also the Tribunal erred pe