Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Ms. M. Jain, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Mahasweta Acharyya, the learned Counsel for the respondent. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2009, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, in Application No. 24/2007, thereby dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation on the alleged ground of death of one Rajen Basumatary in an untoward railway accident.

2. As per the claim petition, the said Late Rajen Basumatary, who was allegedly travelling by 613 Up BG Bongaigaon bound passenger train on 03.05.2006, accidentally fell down due to heavy rush of passengers and died. The respondent contested the claim petition by filing their written statement, wherein it was stated that the said deceased was run over by 613 Up BG Passenger train starter at 1/No. 2. The position of the starter signal is at a distance ahead of train stopping area. No one can be cut there when the train is on movement. The railways doubted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger as his ticket was defaced and did not contain ticket number or date of journey. The respondent had submitted 4 documents, viz., (1) FIR, (2) Inquest Report, (3) Post Mortem Report, (4) Station Master's Report.

3. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:-

a. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question on the date of the incident?

b. Whether the incident as alleged in the claim application took place and is covered within the definition of untoward incident u/s. 123(c) of the Railways Act?

c. Whether he is entitled to any compensation?

d. Relief, if any?

4. The claimant's side examined two witness. The appellant/claimant was examined as AW-1 and one Sri Ananda Basumatary was examined as AW-2. As the Appellant was stated to be illiterate, the AW-2 exhibited 6 documents, viz., GRP Report (Ext. A1), Postmortem Report ("PM Report" for short) (Ext. A2), Death Certificate (Ext. A3), Next of Kin Certificate (Ext. A4), Income Certificate (Ext. A5), Rail journey ticket (Ext. A6). The respondents did not examine any witness and did not exhibit any document.

5. After conclusion of argument, the order was reserved by the learned Tribunal. At that stage, the learned counsel for the appellant had prayed for direction to produce final report of investigation by GRP, which was refused.

6. In respect of Issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal held that as the appellant/claimant i.e. AW-1 did not accompany her husband in train, her evidence was of no help regarding her deceased husband being a bonafide passenger. The learned Tribunal had mentioned that although the AW-2 had marked 6 above referred exhibits, in his cross examination, he had stated that he did not know whether or not the deceased had purchased the ticket. It was held that the rail ticket was defaced and did not bear ticket number and date. The learned Tribunal had discussed the evidence of AW-2, wherein he had stated that the defaced ticket was found in the underwear of the deceased person while he was being taken for cremation and that the further deposition of the AW-2 was that the deceased was run over by severing the head from the body, his right and left arms were completely separated from the elbow and his left leg was completely separated from the knee joint, and in the said context, it was opined that under such circumstances, the ticket must have been smeared with blood, and it was held to be highly improbable that the said ticket had remained in his body till he was taken for cremation. Under the circumstances, it was held that the accident did not take place while boarding the train and that there was no evidence that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of 613 Up BG Bongaigaon bound passenger train. The issue was decided against the appellant/clamant. In respect of Issue No. 2, the evidence of AW-2 wa