1. Heard.

The appellants are challenging the judgment dated 20/04/2016 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Case No.OA(11u) NGP/2012/0342.

2. According to the appellants, Prinal was the son of the appellants who met with an accident on 24/10/2011 at Titwala railway station. At that time he was going to Kalyan for his onward journey from Kalyan to Ghatkopar for which he had purchased a valid ticket. According to the appellants at Shahad station there was heavy rush on the platform and in the compartment of train. Prinal was standing near the door of the train and when train started, the other passengers who were also standing near the door pushed Prinal and he fell down from the moving train and died on the spot.

3. In pursuance to the incident of death of Prinal, the appellants filed claim petition No.OA/(11u)/NGP/2012/0342 before the Railway Claim Tribunal, Nagpur claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest from the respondent.

4. The Railway Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 20/04/2016 rejected the claim petition and hence the appellants have filed the present appeal.

5. According to Shri K. Y. Mandpe, learned counsel for the appellants, judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is patently illegal. The Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was regular bonafide passenger of the respondent-railway. He was holding a valid pass from Kalyan to Ghatkopar which was valid from 22/09/2011 to 20/10/2011. He further submitted that the deceased Prinal is a victim of an untoward incident and as such, his parents-appellants are entitled to compensation from the railway department. The learned counsel further submits that since the material placed before the Railway Tribunal has not been considered in proper perspective, the impugned order suffers from grave illegality and requires to be quashed and set aside. He further prays that the compensation be awarded to the appellants in lieu of death of their son Prinal in the railway accident.

6. Per contra Ms Neerja Choubey, learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the present appeal. According to her, there is no evidence as regards bonafide passenger of the deceased. No valid ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased. Moreover, there are eye witnesses who stated that while crossing the railway line, deceased Prinal was hit by the moving train and as a result of which he sustained injuries and died. The learned counsel further submitted that as the deceased is not covered under the Railway Act, 1989 as being bonafide passenger, the appellants are not entitled to get compensation.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record available with this Court, it is found that Prinal died at Shahad railway station. The incident was reported to the police. In the said report it was pointed out that deceased was crossing railway line and at that time he was hit by moving train. Various documents including cash of Rs.170/-, motor driving license, I-card etc. were recovered from the person of the deceased but valid ticket was not found from his person. Moreover, he was not travelling in the train as deposed by the eye-witness who has seen the deceased crossing the railway line.

8. In that view of the matter, neither the deceased is covered under the definition of bonafide passenger nor he died in pursuance to untoward incident as described under the provisions of the Railway Act, 1989. Hence after going through the record and the judgment passed by the learned Railway Tribunal, I do not find any ground raised by the appellants to disturb the finding of Tribunal. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

9. No order as to costs.