S.K. Sinha, J.- This appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd March, 2009, in claim application number O.A. 00199 of 2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, whereby the applicant's claim has been declined and the claim application has been dismissed.

2. The brief fact of the case as made out in the claim petition is to the effect that the applicant's husband namely, Arvind Kumar while travelling from Patna Junction to Parsa Bazar after purchasing the railway ticket boarded the train No. 599 UP (Patna-Gaya Passenger). The train was crowded, as such, the husband of the applicant was standing in the bogie near the gate, however, while the train was running below the Sipara Bridge (nearby Patna Junction) the train suddenly sustained a sudden jerk with the result the husband of the applicant fell down from the running train and died on the spot sustaining serious head injury. On account of the aforesaid untoward incident applicant filed claim application claiming compensation of rupees four lacs as provided under Part-I to the Schedule of Rule 3 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The respondent-Railway resisted the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger for having no railway ticket nor there is any eye witness to the incident. Moreso, as per the report of the Divisional Railway Manager the incident in question comes within the ambit of Section 124(A)(C) of the Railways Act. 1989 which provides that no compensation is payable for the criminal act of the person concerned. The applicant adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of her claim, however, the Railway except for filing the written statement did not adduce any evidence oral or documentary. The Tribunal upon considering oral as well as documentary evidence produced on behalf of the applicant however came to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The evidence of the applicant witness suffers from contradictions, and as such, they cannot be relied upon. Besides, the documents produced on behalf of the applicant also suffers from discrepancy in the date of the incident as in some of the documents the date of incident is mentioned as 10.11.2004 and in some other documents it is mentioned as 11.10.2004 as also the timing given in the memo of Assistant Station Master informing G.R.P., Patna Junction vis-a-vis the time mentioned in the Inquest Report, and as such, on account of such discrepancy in the date and time the Tribunal did not accept the documents produced on behalf of the applicant in support of the claim. Accordingly, the claim application was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal while considering the case of applicant as also the evidence brought on record oral as well as documentary adopted an' unreasonable approach for rejecting the claim of applicant on account of certain minor discrepancy in the oral as well as documentary evidence with respect to the date and time of incident. It is submitted that on basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record on behalf of the applicant the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim instead of dismissing the same, moreso, in absence of any evidence adduced on behalf of the Railway either oral or documentary controverting those documents. It was further submitted that the applicant adduced evidence that the deceased had purchased the railway ticket, boarded the train who later fell down from the train and died on the spot. It was further submitted that the onus was on the part of the Railway to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger falling down from the train relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kaushalya Devl & Ors. vs. Union of India, reported in 2008(3) P.L.J.R. 711 as also the decision in the case of Vijay Shankar Sharma vs. Union of India, reported in 2011 (2) P.L.J.R.