JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA(IIU) RNC/2011/0008 (Checklist No.290110003), whereby the claim application of the appellant seeking compensation on account of death of her husband has been dismissed.

2. The appellant herein filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation for the death of her husband Rajendra Dom in a railway untoward incident. Deceased was travelling from Gaya to Koderma, after purchasing a valid ticket from Gaya on 13.08.2009. It has been mentioned in the pleadings that as there was huge crowd in the general compartment, he was compelled to stand near the gate. Due to jostling amongst the passengers, deceased accidentally fell down from the running train near the West Home Signal of Gurpa Station as a result of which he sustained injuries and died. On the basis of the statement of the brother of the deceased before the Gaya Railway Police, U.D. Case No.56 of 2009 dated 13.08.2009 was registered. Final report was submitted mentioning therein that case is of accidental death.

3. Claim application was filed seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, which arose due to an untoward incident. The claimant adduced evidence in support of her claim. Railways also adduced evidence.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the parties, held that the applicant has failed to establish that the deceased had died due to an accident on fall from a passenger train. The Tribunal held that the applicant has failed to prove that the deceased died due to an untoward incident. Since, as per the Tribunal, the deceased did not die due to untoward incident, it is also not established that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Thus, the application was dismissed.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the ground on which the application was dismissed cannot withstand the test of law. She submits that, admittedly, the dead body was found besides the railway track and there are evidence to suggest that deceased fell from a running train. The gateman noticing that a male person was found lying injured at KM 426/20, reported the fact. The deceased was alive at that point of time, but, when he was brought to the station at 12.35 hours, he was dead. When, immediately the deceased did not die, the gateman should have attended him and should have inquired about the fact as to how he had sustained injury. She submitted that postmortem report also suggests that the death was caused due to antemortem injuries, consistent with the rail traffic injuries. The onus that the deceased was bonafide passenger was discharged by the claimant, inspite of that the finding of the Tribunal is against the applicant without any basis. Counsel for the applicant submits that this appeal needs to be allowed.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Railways, submitted that the witnesses examined on behalf of the Railways clearly suggests that the deceased did not die because of any untoward incident. The Train Signal Register will suggest that a Goods Train arrived at Gurpa Station at 11.46 and departed at 11.47 towards Gaya in the DN track. Before the goods train passed, a passenger train 3152 DN arrived at Gurpa Station at 7.46 Hrs. and departed at 7.47 Hrs. After the goods train passed the next passenger train 2802 DN had passed at 15.06 Hrs., which clearly suggests that the deceased if at all fell from a train, fell from the goods train as the gateman had seen the body at 11.55, i.e., after the goods train had passed and before 2802 DN passenger train. In that case, he cannot be said to be a bonafide passenger of a goods train.

On the aforesaid ground, counsel for the Railways pray to dismiss this appeal also.

7. As stated above, claimant is the wife of the deceased. She was examined before the Tribunal, wherein she stated that as there was heavy rush in the train,