BHATTACHARYA, J.

(1). This appeal is at the instance of a claimant in a proceeding under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and is directed against an award dated 25th January, 2008 passed by the Vice Chairman of Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in Case No. U/840/ 2004 thereby dismissing the claim-application on the ground that the claimant could not prove that the victim was a passenger of the train with valid ticket or that he died due to accidental fall from a running train by adducing any evidence of the eyewitness.

(2). Being dissatisfied, the claimant, the mother of the victim, has come up with the present appeal.

(3). It appears from record that the appellant before us filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act thereby claiming compensation for the death of her son, one Chhatu Mondal, aged 16 years, by occupation student, on the allegation that on 6th May, 2002 the said Chhatu Mondal at 6 p.m. with some persons of his area was traveling Ex-Sainthia to Ahmedpur with valid second class ordinary ticket by the overcrowded 3018 Dn. Ganadevata Express and accidentally fell down from the running train in between Bataspur M/L No. 2 and 3 at KM Post No. 62/9-10 near Cabin Bataspur Signal and succumbed to his injury.

(4). The proceeding was contested by the General Manager, Eastern Railway, by filing written statement and the defence of the Railway may be summed up thus : (a) The application was a misconceived one and not maintainable and at the same time, was barred by limitation. The applicant was required to prove her allegation made in the claim-application which was not admitted by the Railway Authority for want of knowledge. (b) As in the claim-application, the particulars of the alleged accident were insufficient and there was no iota of evidence that the compartment in the said Express train was overcrowded or that there was jostling and jerking in the train and consequently, the victim fell down, the claim-application was not maintainable. (c) Although the police-report indicated that the victim fell down but such report was required to be proved by the police personnel who signed the report and the legal and relevant papers were not annexed with the claim-application. According to the station-report, one unknown male-person aged about 16-18 years was dashed by 3018 Dn. Express train and killed and it was not a case of falling down from a train which attracted Section 124A of the Railways Amending Act, 1994. The applicant was, therefore, not entitled to get any compensation.

(5). At the time of hearing, the appellant alone gave evidence by asserting that she herself purchased one general class express ticket from Sainthia Railway Station ticket counter Ex-Sainthia to Ahmedpur and then handed over the same to her son who was going to her mothers house and after few minutes, the Dn. Ganadevata Express reached the platform No.4. The appellant further stated that the general compartment was overcrowded but anyhow, her son boarded into the general compartment and stood near the gate, as a result, she asked him to go inside the compartment. The appellant further stated that after the train left, she came back home but as till 8 p.m. he did not return, she went to the Sainthia Railway Station and came to know from a hawker that a boy aged about 16/17 years fell down from the running Ganadevata Express near Bataspur Railway Station. According to the appellant, she immediately made a telephone call to her mother at Ahmedpur and got information that Chattu did not reach there. She returned home and sent her brother-in-law to Sainthia G.R.P. to collect information regarding the incident. The said brother-in-law came to know from the G.R.P., Sainthia that a boy named Chattu Mondal fell down from Dn. Ganadevata Express. Then he went to Bataspur with the G.R.P., Sainthia and took the dead body of Chattu at Sainthia by Biswabharati Express. The dead body was sent to Ram