1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under S.23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1987') on behalf of the applicant Savitri Devi (now deceased, represented through her legal representatives) against the judgment dated 16.3.2016 passed by the learned Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal'), in Claim Application No. OA 00052 of 2009, whereby the claim application of the applicant for payment of compensation has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant Savitri Devi as dependant, filed the claim application before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs.4,00,000 along with interest on it, as her husband, i.e., Upendra Kumar Verma died in an untoward incident. The applicant has mentioned in her claim application that the deceased along with his son Shashi Bhushan Prasad and grandson Suraj Kumar, on the fateful day, i.e., on 13.3.2008, after purchasing second class journey ticket bearing ticket No. 15603 boarded the train at Sohsarai Halt for Athmal Gola Station. Due to heavy rush in the general compartment he was standing near the gate inside the compartment. The passengers were jostling one another for space in the compartment, in the mean time the train stopped at Bakhtiyarpur Station with a sudden jerk due to which the bona fide passenger Upendra Kumar Verma got imbalanced and fell down form the moving train. The deceased died on spot in the east of Platform No. 5 at 9.45 a.m. thereafter the GRP Bakhtiyarpur lodged a UD Case No. 3/2008 on 13.3.2008.

4. The Union of India / Railways filed its written statement pleading inter alia, therein that appellant had not produce any witness or supporting document to prove her case. The applicant had not proved that the deceased died due to injury caused by falling from train and applicant is not entitled to get any compensation.

5. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of rival pleadings framed the following issues:
"(1) Whether the deceased was bona fide passenger?
(2) Whether the alleged untoward incident is covered under S.123
(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989?
(3) Whether applicant / dependant was dependent on deceased?
(4) Whether applicant / dependant is entitled to receive compensation amount?"

6. During inquiry, the applicant, Savitri Devi filed affidavit on 23.2.2015, supporting the fact of death of her husband and also proved 9 documents (Exhs. A / 1 to A / 9) which includes copy of DSM memo dated 13.3.2008 addressed to GRP, Bakhtiyarpur (Exh. A / 1), final report in UD Case (Exh. A / 2), UD Case No. 03/2008 lodged by Rail PS Baktiyarpur (Exh. A / 3), inquest report (Exh. A / 4), post - mortem report (Exh. A / 5), death certificate (Exh. A / 6), family register (Exh. A / 7), and Aadhar Card (Exh. A / 8).

7. As per GRP Memo dated 13.3.2008 (Exh. A / 1) addressed to DMO on Platform No. 5, in east side, one person was lying dead and as per F.I.R. (Exh. A / 3), and inquest report (Exh. A / 4), the death of the deceased Upendra Kumar Verma was due to some unknown disease. The postmortem report (Exh. A / 5) of deceased disclosed the cause of death due to disease of heart. As per the final report (Exh. A / 2), the cause of death has been stated as due to 'cardiac arrest'.

8. In this case, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of respondent / Railways.

9. After considering the F.I.R., inquest report, post - mortem report, and the conclusion in final report of UD Case, the learned Tribunal observed that the deceased Upendra Kumar Verma died due to 'disease of heart' and the applicant failed to prove that the deceased died due to injury caused in 'untoward incident', thus, the applicant is not entitled to get compensation arising out of the death of the deceased. The learned Tribunal dismissed the petition with cost of Rs.10,000 and held that