Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway, appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, rejecting the Claim Application No.OA-II-57/2010 (Old) filed by the appellant seeking compensation for the death of his wife in an untoward incident while travelling as a Railway passenger.

3. The facts of the case giving rise to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the wife of the appellant Late Jumi Kalita being accompanied by three other passengers, viz., Herombo Kumar Das, Konkon Kalita and Kalyan Das had boarded No.706 Down Passenger Trainfrom Guwahati towards destination Bongaigaon and during the course of the journey Jumi Kalita slipped and fell out of the running train. The accident was stated to have occurred at around 7.30 p.m. due to a sudden jerk in the train which had led to the deceased losing her balance while trying to wash her face in the wash basin and she fell out of the train through the open door and sustained grievous injury which lead to her death.

4. The respondents had filed written statement, inter alia, denying the claim of the appellant. The stand of the respondent is that it is a case of suicide committed by Jumi Kalita.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues :

“1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger?

2. Was there been an untoward incident as contended?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled for any compensation? If so, what is the sum?

4. Reliefs and costs ?”

6. During the course of trial the appellant had examined three witnesses as AWs 1 to 3 and exhibited documents being Exts-A1 to A6 and R1 series. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the evidence on record the learned Tribunal had concluded that this was a case where the deceased Jumi Kalita had in all probability committee suicide and therefore, the incident would not come within the definition of “untoward incident”. The said conclusion of the learned Tribunal is primarily based on the two exhibits i.e. A1 and A6 which are the First Information Statement (F.I.S.) as well as Final Report dated 30.08.2007 submitted by ASI of Goalpara Police Station.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Islam, has argued that the conclusion of the learned Tribunal as regards Issue No.2 is perverse to the evidence on record inasmuch as there is nothing to show that the deceased wife of the appellant had committed suicide by jumping out of the train. Mr. Islam has further argued that from the testimony of the co-passengers, particularly AW-2, Heromba Kumar Das and AW 3, Konkon Kalita it is proved that the deceased had lost her balance while washing her hands and face due to the sudden jerk and fell down from the train through the open door. As such, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to decide the said issue against the appellant.

8. Mr. R. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, N.F.Railway, has opposed the submissions of the appellant’s counsel primarily on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger since no valid journey ticket was produced by the appellant before the Railway Tribunal. As regards the findings in respect of Issue No.2, Mr. Sarma contends that F.I.S. (Ext-A1), the Inquest Report (Ext-A3) as well as the Final Report (Ext-A6) clearly goes to show that it is a case of suicide and therefore, the claim for compensation would be barred under section 124A(a) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short Act of 1989). On such ground the learned Standing Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record.

10. It is not in dispute that on 02.08.2007 the wife of the appellant Late Jumi Ka