JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. Brijesh Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railways, appearing for the respondent.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30/01/2018 passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati in connection with application No. OA.IIU-59/2015, dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. The appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, had filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of his wife late Lily Konwar, alleging that her death took place in an untoward incident on 28/12/2014 when the victim had fallen down from the train in which she was travelling from Tinsukia to Simaluguri. The basic case of the claimant is that due to the rush of passengers, the victim could not get down from the train when it had reached Simaluguri station. The victim, however, fell down from the train at KM 421/0 at a distance of 1.2 KM from the Simaluguri Railway Station and sustained grievous injuries leading to her death.

4. The respondent / Railways had contested the claim petition by filing written statement categorically denying that the victim had fallen down from the running train. According to the respondent, on the date of the incident, there was no rush at all in the passenger train by which the victim was allegedly travelling and therefore, the question of her falling down at the Simaluguri station due to rush of passengers did not arise at all. The respondent has, however, not denied or disputed the fact that the victim was holding a valid journey ticket but had contended that her body was recovered from the Railway track at a distance of more than 1 KM away from the Simaluguri Railway Station and, therefore, it cannot be said that the victim had died in an untoward incident.The respondent / N.F.Railways has further contended that the investigation conducted by the Police revealed that the victim was a patient of Epilepsy and had a history of unnatural behavior and therefore, it is possible that the death of the victim might have been caused due to her own negligence while walking on the railway track in the midst of a heavy fog in the wee hours of the day.

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

"i. Whether the victim was a bonafide passenger?

ii. Whether the victim died in an untoward incident?

iii. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what sum?

(iv) Relief & costs?"

6. Taking note of the materials available on record and after hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition by holding that the victim was knocked down by a running train when trespassing the railway track and that the claimant had failed to establish that the victim had died in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c) of the Railway Act, 1989.

7. Mr. Rahman submits that the respondent has not disputed the fact that the claimant had travelled from New Tinsukia to Simaluguri with a valid journey ticket which was recovered from her possession but the only dispute in this case is with regard to the circumstances under which she had suffered death. The learned counsel submits that since the deceased was a bonafide passenger and her body was recovered from the railway track, hence, the only conclusion that can be drawn in this case is to the effect that the victim has suffered death after having fallen down from the running train.

8. Placing reliance on an unreported decision of this Court rendered on 07/02/2019 in the case of Pranjit Roy Vs. Union of India (Re. MFA 68/2018), Mr. Rahman submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant merely on the ground that there was no witness to the incident by ignoring the circumstances under which the dead body of the victim was recovered from the ra