JUDGMENT: L.NARASIMHA REDDY 1. The appellants filed O.A.A.No.197 of 1998 before Secunderabad Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation on account of death of K.Ramanooka Nageswararao. It was pleaded that Nageswararao held a season ticket for travelling between Anakapalli and Visakhapatnam and that on 25.06.1998, he intended to go to Tuni in search of employment and accordingly, boarded Train No.7240 Visakhapatnam-Guntur Simhadri Express at Anakapalli. It was pleaded that Nageswararao got down at Yelamanchili Station to drink water and thereafter, boarded the train, but on account of sudden jerks, he fell down and came under the wheels. His friend Malla Ramu is said to have made an attempt to stop the train by pulling the chain and since the train did not stop, he informed the Porter about the identity of the deceased and as to the availability of the ticket in his pocket. The appellants stated that the Porter and Malla Ramu rushed to the spot, picked up Nageswararao in a seriously injured condition and shifted him to the Government Hospital with the help of Railway employees after informing the Station Superintendent. Nageswararao is said to have died within short time while undergoing treatment and that an inquest report was prepared by the Railway Police. With these and other related allegations, they claimed compensation. 2. The respondent filed a written statement opposing the plea. It denied the occurrence of the accident and has pointed out several contradictions. According to them, a passenger ticket from Anakapalli to Tuni was planted in the pocket of the deceased after realizing that the season ticket was from Anakapalli to Visakhapatnam. The respondent has challenged the validity and truthfulness of the inquest report. 3. Through its order, dated 19.08.2003, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal. 4. Smt.A.Manikya Valli, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal failed to take into account, several relevant facts, such as a detailed inquest report indicating the manner in which the untoward incident has occurred and the probabilities of the deceased falling from the train due to sudden jerk. She contends that the Tribunal entertained doubts on certain aspects, though there existed sufficient material to prove the relevant facts. 5. She contends that the Tribunal entertained doubts on certain aspects, though there existed sufficient material to prove the relevant facts. 5. Sri T.S.Venkataramana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is a clear case of claim being made in respect of a dead person by claiming it as a death on account of an untoward incident. He submits that the so-called eye witness to the accident, by name Malla Ramu, was not examined as a witness and in their anxiety to make the Tribunal to believe that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, a ticket, which was issued in the afternoon, was planted in the pocket of the deceased without realizing that the train in which he is said to have travelled left the station at 9.00 a.m. itself. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the said train? (2) Whether the said accident was within the ambit of Section 124-A of the Act? (3) Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased? (4) What amount of compensation, if any, the applicants are entitled to? 7. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 would have become relevant, in case the answers to issue Nos. 1 and 2 are in favour of the claimants. Oral and documentary evidence was considered and the said issues were answered against the appellants. Before this Court also, those two issues become relevant and arguments are advanced on the same. 8. The Railway Administration can be held liable to pay compensation only when a bona fide passenger sustained injuries or loses life in an untoward incident involving a passenger train. The basic and primary requirement for this purpose would be to prove that the injured or the deceased was a bona fide passenger. In the instant case, it was pleaded that the deceased boarded the train at Anakapalli and was destined to travel up to Tuni in an Express Train from Visakhapatnam to Guntur. Initially what was recovered from the body of the deceased was a season ticket from Anakapalli to Visakhapatnam, which is in the opposite direction to the travel from Anakapalli to Tuni. Obviously, to overcome this lapse, it is pleaded that another ticket bearing No.66095 from Anakapalli to Tuni was found on the pocket of the deceased. Initially what was recovered from the body of the deceased was a season ticket from Anakapalli to Visakhapatnam, which is in the opposite direction to the travel from Anakapalli to Tuni. Obviously, to overcome this lapse, it is pleaded that another ticket bearing No.66095 from Anakapalli to Tuni was found on the pocket of the deceased. The record, however, disclosed that Ticket No.66095 from Anakapalli to Tuni was issued after 12 hours on 25.06.1998. To be precise, Ticket Nos.66085 to 66097 were issued in the II shift subsequent to 12 hours. Train No.7240 Visakhapatnam-Guntur Express left Anakapalli at 9.10 a.m. Therefore, this is a clear case of making an attempt to claim that a death, which occurred otherwise is the result of an untoward incident. 9. There is another strong circumstance that militates against the appellants. Even according to them, one Sri Malla Ramu, a friend of the deceased, was also travelling in the same train and compartment and that he was the first person to notice the fall of the deceased from the train. He is said to have made an attempt to pull alarm chain and when the train did not stop, he informed the Porter about the identity of the deceased and the availability of the ticket in the pocket of the deceased. There are several imponderables and uncertainties on this. It is not clear as to whether the said Ramu got down from the train and whether he was not able to stop the train when pulling the alarm chain. In case, he got down from the train, he ought to have accompanied the Porter, who is said to have shifted Nageswararao in an injured condition to the Railway Hospital. Further, by the time a person makes an attempt to pull the alarm chain and realizes that the train is not stopping, the train would have picked considerable speed, making it impossible for anyone to get down. It is just un-understandable as to how, from a moving train he furnished so much of information to a Porter, who was standing in the platform. More than all that, the appellants did not choose to examine that witness before the Tribunal. An inference provided for under Section 114 of the Evidence act gets attracted, namely that had he been examined, he would have spoken to the contrary. 10. More than all that, the appellants did not choose to examine that witness before the Tribunal. An inference provided for under Section 114 of the Evidence act gets attracted, namely that had he been examined, he would have spoken to the contrary. 10. The Tribunal has undertaken extensive examination of the entire record, including the inquest report. On noticing several infirmities and lapses, the Tribunal has forwarded a copy of the judgment to the Director General of Police to ensure that such incidents do not occur. Once it becomes clear that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, it does not make much of difference, and the question as to whether the death was on account of an untoward incident does not assume significance. Even assuming that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the evidence on record does not support the plea that he died in an untoward incident. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to grant any relief to the appellants. 11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.