Compensation under S. 82F of the Railways Act can be claimed only in respect of a bona fide passenger.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal from order under O. 43, R. 1, CPC and under S. 82-F of the Railways Act is directed against the order dated 27th April 1979 passed by the ad hoc Claims Commissioner, Northern Railway, Allahabad. By this order, the claim petition filed by Smt. Sudha Srivastava was rejected and aggrieved by the same, the appellant Smt. Sudha Srivastava has come up before us by way of this appeal.

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that 103 Up Delux Express train and UPC Special train collided at Naini Railway Station of Allahabad Division on 10th Oct. 1977 at 00. 15 hours. The appellant through an application dated 7th Jan. 1978 presented on 9th Jan. 1978 for grant of Rs. Five Lakhs as compensation u/s. 82f of the Railways Act, alleged that her husband Sri Ram Naresh Srivastava was travelling by the aforesaid 103 Up Delux Express train from Mugalsarai to Kanpur, died as a result of the collision of the aforesaid trains on 10th Oct, 1977. Smt Sudha Srivastava filed claim petition No. 20 on her own behalf and as a guardian of her two minor unmarried daughters and four minor sons for the alleged death of her husband Sri Ram Naresh Srivastava who is claimed to have been a passenger on 103 Up Delux Express train.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, in the written statement filed by the Railway administration, it has been stated that the alleged deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the aforesaid train and that the name of the alleged deceased is not borne out in the official list of the dead persons. It has also been denied that the applicant was a dependent of the alleged deceased. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the ad hoc Claims Commissioner Northern Railway Allahabad. 1. Whether Ram Naresh Srivastava was a bona fide passenger in the train which met with the accident? If so, whether he died as a result of the accident? 2. Whether the applicants are dependents of Sri Ram Naresh Srivastava? 3. To what compensation if any, are the applicants entitled?

( 4 ) THE appellant has examined herself and Sri Satya Narain Varma. She also filed some documentary evidence in support of her claim and also got summoned from the Railway administration a hand-bag containing a few books, shirt a letter written by the applicant and a few documents belonging to Sri Ram Naresh Srivastava. The Railway administration examined two Sub-Inspectors of Police S/sri B. P. Gupta and Ram Kumar Dubey who have proved two First Information Reports. One F. I. R is dated 28-8-1977 under S. 364, Penal Code at Police Station Nawabganj, Kanpur and the second F. I. R. is dated 28-1-1978 under S. 420 read with S. 468, Penal Code at Police Station Qaisarbagh, Lucknow. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned ad hoc Claims Commissioner decided all the aforesaid issues against the appellant.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the evidence on record it appears that Sri Ram Naresh Srivastava used to work as building Contractor at Aliganj, Lucknow. He had gone to Lucknow from Kanpur on 25-8-1977. On 27-8-1977 the applicant claims to have received information that some persons had abducted away her husband from Lucknow. She had lodged F. I. R on 20-8-1977 u/s. 364, I. P. C. According to her (applicant), Sri Ram Naresh Srivastava paid her a visit for 10 or 15 minutes in the night between 3/4-9-1977 probably at 2 A. M. or 2. 30 A. M. and had told her that he was proceeding to Ranchi. From the recitals in the letter of the appellant addressed to her husband found in the hand bag, it is clear that the appellant and her husband were apprehending that cases would be instituted against the latter. Sri R. K. Dubey has stated that the case u/s. 420/468, IPC is under investigation as the accused is absconding.

( 6 ) ISSUE No. 1 is the main issue in this case. The first and most important point in this connection is whether Ram Naresh Srivastava was a bona fide passenger in the ill fated 103 Up Delux Express train, wh