The liability of the railway administration to pay compensation under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act is confined to bona fide passengers, i.e., those travelling with a valid ticket or pass or under some authority of the railway administration.

H. N. SETH, J. :- This appeal under Section 82-F of the Indian Railways Act by Smt. Yasoda Devi, Suni Kumar and Oudesh Kumar is directed against an order dated 15-3-75, passed by Claims Commissioner, Moradabad dismissing their claim for compensation.

2. The claimants Smt. Yashoda Devi, Sunil Kumar and Oudesh Kumar are the widow and minor sons of late Sri Ram, Boiler Loco running shed, Lucknow who along with his daughter Kumari Kunwari Devi, lost his life in a railway accident that took place on the night intervening 20/21-2-74 at Kathghar near Moradabad Junction.

3. According to the claimants, on 16-2-74, Sri Ram and his daughter Km. Kunwari Devi, aged about 161/2 years had gone to Haridwar to have a dip in Ganges on the occasion of Maha Shivratri which fell on 19-2-74, both of them were returning by 66 DN. Varanasi Janta Express train which collided with a stationary goods train at Kathghar near, Moradabad. As a result of this accident, both Sri Ram and Km. Kunwari Devi were killed. The claimants urged that apart from Sri Ram, Km. Kunwari Devi was also earning a sum of Rs. 150 p.m. by tailoring, embroidery and knitting etc. and that they were dependants not only on Sri Ram but also on Km. Kunwari Devi; they therefore claimed compensation amounting of Rs. 1 lakh i.e. Rs. 50,000 for each of the two deaths.

4. The claim was contested by Union of India, which admitted that Sri Ram died in the accident, but denied that any person by the name of Km. Kunwari Devi had died in that accident. It pleaded that as at the time of the accident the two deceased were not bona fide passengers, it was not liable to compensate the claimants for their deaths. It also claimed that as in any case the claimants could not be the dependants on Km. Kunwari Devi who was merely a minor aged about 161/2 years they are not entitled to recover any compensation in respect of her death. Various other pleas were also taken but then it is not necessary to mention them here at this stage.

5. After going through the evidence produced in the case, the Claims Commissioner found that Km. Kunwari Devi was also travelling and that she also died as a result of the railway accident. He also found that Km. Kunwari Devi was earning Rs. 150 p.m. and she along with her father had been supporting the claimants who were dependant upon her as well. However, the Claims Commissioner after taking into consideration various circumstances mentioned by him, came to the conclusion that as it had not been shown that at the time of the accident, Sri Ram and Km. Kunwari Devi were travelling with ticket, they did not fall in the category of bona fide passengers and as such, no compensation under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act was payable to the claimants in respect of their deaths. Being aggrieved, the claimants have come up in appeal before this Court.

6. Sri Sushil Harkauli, learned counsel appearing for the claimants who argued this appeal with ability and fairness, impugned the order passed by Claims Commissioner on following two grounds :-

1. The Claims Commissioner was wrong in proceeding on the basis that the liability of the railway to pay compensation under Section 82-A was confined only in respect of death of a bona fide passenger.

2. The finding of the Claims Commissioner that Sri Ram and his daughter Km. Kunwari Devi were not bona fide passengers, is wrong and is not borne out by evidence on the record. So far as the first submission made by Sri Harkauli is concerned, he very fairly brought it to our notice that the view taken by claims tribunal that the passenger for whose death compensation becomes payable under Sec. 82-A of the Indian Railways Act must be a bona fide passenger in the sense that he should, at the time of accident, have been travelling in the train either with ticket or under some authority, and that the expression passenger as used in Section 82-A does not cover within its ambit, a passenger who travels without ticket, is in consonance with a vie