JUDGMENT :

[J.J. Munir, J.]

1. The Union of India has appealed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ''the Act'') from a judgment of the Tribunal dated 15.3.2019, awarding compensation to the dependents of the victim of a railway accident.

2. The claimant-respondents Dinesh Kumar and Smt. Prem Lata instituted a claim under Section 16 of the Act against the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad seeking compensation for the death of their son, Laxmikant in a railway accident on 25.2.2012. It is the claimant-respondents' case that the deceased was travelling from Satna to Varanasi on 25.2.2012 on board the Tapti Ganga Express. As the train was moving between the Meja Road and Unchadih Railway Stations, the deceased accidentally fell off the train, sustaining grievous injuries. He succumbed to those injuries. It is the claimants' case that the deceased was travelling on a second class railway ticket from Satna to Varanasi, that was lost from his person, in the course of the accident.

3. The appellants contested the claim, denying the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on board train on the date of the incident or that he died in consequence of an accidental fall from the train while travelling as a bona fide passenger. It was emphasized that no First Information Report was lodged, reporting the loss of belongings and the journey ticket by the claimants. It was pleaded that the deceased was, in fact, run over by the train on the date of accident, where fabricated facts have been pleaded to set up a false claim. It was also pleaded by the appellant that no police panchnama or autopsy was put in by the claimants in the absence of which, the claimants must be held to have failed in discharging their evidential burden. It was also pleaded that the particulars of the incident set out in Paragraph No. 6 of the claim petition, did not attract the ingredients of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Act. The Tribunal framed the following issues :

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

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

(iii) Who are the dependents of the deceased?

(iv) To what relief?

4. The claimants, in support of their case, relied on the testimony of Dinesh Kumar, who has been described by the Tribunal as AW-1. He testified on affidavit. Another witness was Srinath, AW-2. He too testified on affidavit. Srinath was produced in Court and cross-examined. The claimant-respondents relied for documentary evidence upon copies of the Station Superintendent's memo, inquest report issued by the pradhan, the police report and ration card. The appellants, in support of their case, relied on the Statutory Investigation Report carrying the DRM's report.

5. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were dealt with by the Tribunal together and it was held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on board the train in question, and that his death occurred on account of an accident during course of the journey. It falls within the ambit of ''untoward incident'' under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act read with Section 124-A. On the third issue, it was held that the claimants were dependents of the deceased, being his father and mother. This finding was based on the certified copy of the ration card. The claimant-respondents, while answering Issue No. 4, were held entitled to receive in compensation from the appellant a sum of Rs. 8 lacs.

6. In consequence of the findings on the four issues, the petition was allowed, ordering the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 8 lacs in compensation to the claimant-respondents. It was further ordered that the aforesaid sum of compensation be paid to the claimants within a period of nintey days of the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, with inter