Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent on this miscellaneous appeal.

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.03.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench in Claim Application No.OA 00169/2000, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim case of the claimant-appellant (Smt. Dropadi Devi).

3. The factual matrix of the case is that claimant-appellant filed Claim Application No.OA 00169/2000 for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.4,25,000/- (Four Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand) on account of death of her husband in the railway accident with the case in succinct that on 09.12.1999 her husband, Late Jai Prakash Sahani was travelling from Vina Ekma Railway Station to Saharsa Junction with a valid second class ticket by train no.333 Up Farbisganj-Saharsa Passenger. There was heavy rush in the compartment and resultantly her husband fell down from the compartment near north cabin of Saharsa Junction due to sudden jerk coupled with jostling of passengers with each other and died on the spot.

4. Opposite party-respondent filed its written statement and contested the case. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid case of the appellant vide impugned order.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was travelling by the said train as a bona fide passenger after purchasing the second class ticket. As there was heavy rush and jostling of the passengers in the compartment of the train, he fell down from the run train and sustained serious injury and died on the spot due to aforesaid injury. Thus, it happens to be case of an untoward accident and not the case of run over as observed by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the ticket purchased by the deceased was in his pocket which was handed over to him by the doctor at the time of conducting autopsy of the dead body of the deceased and accordingly he filed the said ticket before the learned Tribunal but the same has not been relied upon by the learned Tribunal on the flimsy grounds. It is further submitted by appellant that the co-passenger of the deceased, namely, Sri Muneswar Sahani, who happens to be brother of the deceased, by filing affidavit has also supported the case of the claimant but the learned Tribunal wrongly and illegally disbelieved the aforesaid evidence of Sri Muneswar Sahani, hence the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Railway submitted that the deceased was not travelling by the aforesaid train and had not sustained any injury falling from the said train rather it was a case of run over as the deceased was found between the railway track with his one leg cut into two pieces above the thigh, while the other leg cut near the ankle. Though the appellant had filed ticket said to have been purchased by the deceased and handed over to Muneswar Sahani by the doctor at the time of conducting autopsy of the deceased but neither any postmortem report has been brought on record nor the said doctor has been summoned by the appellant in corroboration of her aforesaid case. It is further submitted that the alleged original ticket filed by the appellant bear the bloodstain while the photostat copy of the ticket filed at the time of claim case does not bear any such stain. Had the original ticket bore the bloodstain the said stain would have been reflected as a dark shade in its photostat but it is not so. Moreover the name of Muneswar Sahani who is said to be travelling with the deceased at the time of accident is neither mentioned in the claim petition nor in the deposition of the claimant rather the said Muneswar Sahani put his appearance before the Tribunal by f