Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ved Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. By means of present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1989, claimants/appellants have challenged the judgment dated 24.12.2010 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal Lucknow Bench at Lucknow, dismissing the Claim Petition No. OA 0600676 (Smt. Sundari Devi and others v. Union of India).

3. Facts, in brief, as submitted by Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the appellants are that on 10.11.2005 Sri Hardwari Lal Gupta, husband of the claimant No. 1, after purchasing second class railway ticket No. 00664 from Bhira Kheri railway station boarded Century Express to go to Lucknow. While he was on the way, thrown out from the said train by dacoits after looting him beyond Bhira towards Mailani as a result of which he went to coma due to anti-mortem head injury and died.

4. In view of the said factual background, a claim petition has been filed by Smt. Sundari Devi wife of deceased Hardwari Lal Guta, registered as Case No. 0A 0600676 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in which a written statement has been filed on behalf of the railway authorities inter alia taking a defence that deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the Century Express train, so the case/claim petition is not covered under Section 123(C) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as an’Act’), liable to be dismissed.

5. The Railway Claims Tribunal in order to decide the controversy involved framed the following issues :

“(1) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question?

(2) Whether incident of death of the deceased falls under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (C) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989?

(3) Who are the dependents of the deceased?

(4) To what relief?”

6. The Tribunal had decided issue No. 1 against the claimant holding that Sri Hardwari Lal Gupat (Deceased) is not a bone fide passenger, the relevant finding in this regard reads as under :

“I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that in the absence of any cogent evidence, the applicant has failed to prove that the said journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased and also the applicant has failed to clarify as to how the alleged journey ticket No. 00664 was found/recovered from the possession of the deceased. In my opinion, the journey ticket produced by the applicant is a planted one, as such the applicant has not come with clean hands and, therefore, the said ticket cannot be considered to be the ticket meant for the alleged rail journey of the deceased by the subject train.

Thus, on the basis of evidence on record and attending circumstances of the case, I find and hold that the deceased was not a bone fide passenger of the subject train. This issue, is thus, decided against the applicants and in favour of the respondent.”

7. And by means of judgment dated 24.12.2010 the claim petition has been dismissed.

8. Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the appellants while challenging the impugned order submits that the findings given by the Tribunal that Hardwari Lal Gupta(deceased) was not bona fide passenger, is totally incorrect and wrong, contrary to material evidence on record. In this regard he relied on the evidence given by Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta (P.W.2), son of the deceased Hardwari Lal Gupta, who has categorically stated that he alongwith his father on 10.11.2005 had came to railway station Bhira Khiri where his father purchased second class railway ticket thereafter boarded on train (Century Exp.).

9. Sri Jaspreeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellants further submits that Suresh Kumar Gupta has categorically stated in his evidence that the police authorities has handed over the original second class railway ticket No.