Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Smt Savitri Devi, widow of Late Shiv Prasad Tiwari (deceased) approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow for payment of compensation under Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989, in short, Act with the allegation that her husband Shri Shiv Prasad Tiwari was travelling in train No.5222 Rapti Sagar Express on 25.2.2003. He was going from Lucknow to Kanpur Central after purchasing a second class journey ticket. On account of sudden jerk, he fell down from the train and later on succumbed to the injuries. The inquest report was prepared at Medical College, Lucknow. However, it has been stated by the claimant that the ticket could not be recovered from the body of the deceased. 3. The appellant filed written statement before the tribunal for payment of compensation under Section 124-A of the Act. The tribunal observed that the deceased was travelling in the train and all of a sudden, on account of sudden jerk, he fell down and the ticket could not be recovered from the body of the deceased. However, the tribunal observed that there is a presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to the bona fide passenger. The submission of the appellant's counsel is that the deceased cannot be treated to be a bona fide passenger as no ticket was recovered from his body. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the deceased was having ticket. However, since he had fallen down from the train due to sudden jerk, he might have lost his sense resulting loss of ticket from his possession. He also submits that in such circumstances, loss of ticket is very common. He further submits that the appellant has not led any evidence to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 5. However, the appellant's counsel submits that the Station Master from some sources came to know that the deceased has committed suicide by jumping from the train. It has also been stated that the deceased while crossing the railway line, suffered collision with the train resulting in the accident and consequential loss of life. 6. 5. However, the appellant's counsel submits that the Station Master from some sources came to know that the deceased has committed suicide by jumping from the train. It has also been stated that the deceased while crossing the railway line, suffered collision with the train resulting in the accident and consequential loss of life. 6. So far as the argument that the deceased had committed suicide is concerned, it appears that the information received by the Station Master is hearsay and no evidence was led by the appellant before the tribunal to establish that the deceased had committed suicide. The burden was on the appellant to lead evidence with regard to the alleged incident of suicide. In absence of any evidence led by the appellant, the statement of the claimant cannot be thrown away merely under the garb of hearsay evidence. 7. Attention of this Court has been invited to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 2008(2) TAC 777(S.C.) Union of India versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others. In the case of Prabhakaran (supra), their Lordship have considered its previous judgments and also leading judgment in Rylands versus Fletcher 1966 L.R.I. Ex. 265. After considering various pronouncements of the Hon'ble supreme Court as well as the Rylands's case(supra) with regard to strict liability in the case of hazardous activities, their Lordships held that in case passengers suffered with an accident while travelling in the train, there shall be presumption with regard to his or her being a bona fide passenger. 8. A Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J) was a member, in a case reported in 2009(1) LCD 240 Smt. Akhtari versus Union of India through G.M. NER, Gorakhpur, after considering a catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that a person travelling in train shall be deemed to be bona fide passenger unless proved otherwise in accordance with law. 9. In the present case, since there appears to be no evidence on record to establish that the deceased committed suicide or was not travelling in the train, the finding recorded by the tribunal does not seem to suffer from any perversity, illegality or impropriety. 10. In the result, the appeal lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 12. 10. In the result, the appeal lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 12. Smt Savitri Devi, widow of Late Shiv Prasad Tiwari (deceased) approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow for payment of compensation under Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989, in short, Act with the allegation that her husband Shri Shiv Prasad Tiwari was travelling in train No.5222 Rapti Sagar Express on 25.2.2003. He was going from Lucknow to Kanpur Central after purchasing a second class journey ticket. On account of sudden jerk, he fell down from the train and later on succumbed to the injuries. The inquest report was prepared at Medical College, Lucknow. However, it has been stated by the claimant that the ticket could not be recovered from the body of the deceased. 13. The appellant filed written statement before the tribunal for payment of compensation under Section 124-A of the Act. The tribunal observed that the deceased was travelling in the train and all of a sudden, on account of sudden jerk, he fell down and the ticket could not be recovered from the body of the deceased. However, the tribunal observed that there is a presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to the bona fide passenger. The submission of the appellant's counsel is that the deceased cannot be treated to be a bona fide passenger as no ticket was recovered from his body. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the deceased was having ticket. However, since he had fallen down from the train due to sudden jerk, he might have lost his sense resulting loss of ticket from his possession. He also submits that in such circumstances, loss of ticket is very common. He further submits that the appellant has not led any evidence to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 15. However, the appellant's counsel submits that the Station Master from some sources came to know that the deceased has committed suicide by jumping from the train. It has also been stated that the deceased while crossing the railway line, suffered collision with the train resulting in the accident and consequential loss of life. 16. 15. However, the appellant's counsel submits that the Station Master from some sources came to know that the deceased has committed suicide by jumping from the train. It has also been stated that the deceased while crossing the railway line, suffered collision with the train resulting in the accident and consequential loss of life. 16. So far as the argument that the deceased had committed suicide is concerned, it appears that the information received by the Station Master is hearsay and no evidence was led by the appellant before the tribunal to establish that the deceased had committed suicide. The burden was on the appellant to lead evidence with regard to the alleged incident of suicide. In absence of any evidence led by the appellant, the statement of the claimant cannot be thrown away merely under the garb of hearsay evidence. 17. Attention of this Court has been invited to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 2008(2) TAC 777(S.C.) Union of India versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others. In the case of Prabhakaran (supra), their Lordship have considered its previous judgments and also leading judgment in Rylands versus Fletcher 1966 L.R.I. Ex. 265. After considering various pronouncements of the Hon'ble supreme Court as well as the Rylands's case(supra) with regard to strict liability in the case of hazardous activities, their Lordships held that in case passengers suffered with an accident while travelling in the train, there shall be presumption with regard to his or her being a bona fide passenger. 18. A Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J) was a member, in a case reported in 2009(1) LCD 240 Smt. Akhtari versus Union of India through G.M. NER, Gorakhpur, after considering a catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that a person travelling in train shall be deemed to be bona fide passenger unless proved otherwise in accordance with law. 19. In the present case, since there appears to be no evidence on record to establish that the deceased committed suicide or was not travelling in the train, the finding recorded by the tribunal does not seem to suffer from any perversity, illegality or impropriety. 20. In the result, the appeal lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed.