ORDER 1. The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been preferred against an order dated 11/11/2011 passed in Case No. OA00086 of 2001 by learned Member (Judicial) of Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench at Patna (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim petition. Short fact of the case is that a claim case was filed by the appellant before the Tribunal disclosing therein that his son, while traveling by train no. 562 Dn accidentally fell down from the running train at Jamira halt and sustained injuries and he died in course of the treatment. It was claimed that the deceased namely Rama Shankar Singh, son of the appellant after purchasing a second class ordinary ticket from Arrah to Patna boarded the train and since the train was over crowded he was standing at the door of the train. Due to heavy rush he fell down from the compartment near Jamira halt on 30.5.2000. With the help of villagers he was carried to Sadar hospital, Arrah, and he died in course of the treatment on the same date. Thereafter, post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased in Sadar hospital, Arrah, itself. Along with the claim petition certain relevant documents were filed. Before the Tribunal two witnesses were examined in support of the claim. Out of two witnesses, the appellant being father of the deceased, was examined as AW-1. Besides the appellant, one another witness namely Balram Singh was examined as AW – 2. Affidavits of the two witnesses were filed. In the affidavit of AW - 2 it was disclosed that he accompanied the deceased up to Arrah railway station, where, the deceased purchased one general class traveling ticket for his journey from Arrah to Patna in his presence and proceeded to board the train. It has further been stated on oath that due to excessive crowd of passengers in the train his cousin (deceased Rama Shankar Singh) was standing at the door. Thereafter, he returned back. The deceased, as per affidavit of AW-2, had boarded the train on 30.5.2000. On the next day he received the news that Rama Shankar Singh had fell down from the running train at Jamira halt. Thereafter, he returned back. The deceased, as per affidavit of AW-2, had boarded the train on 30.5.2000. On the next day he received the news that Rama Shankar Singh had fell down from the running train at Jamira halt. Thereafter, he was admitted in Sadar hospital at Arrah and died during the treatment. AW-1, the appellant (father of the deceased) disclosed in his affidavit that deceased was aged about 25 years and he died in an untowards incident in course of traveling by 562 Dn passenger train near about Jamira halt. Like AW-2 he disclosed in his affidavit that deceased had purchased a second class ordinary train ticket from Arrah to Patna junction and started his journey and accident thereafter occurred. He further stated in his affidavit that villagers and public had picked up the injured and thereafter he was admitted in Sadar hospital, Arrah. He further disclosed that he visited the place of occurrence near Jamira halt where villagers and public narrated all the facts and he came to know that the said accident took place due to excessive crowd of the passengers. The police after completion of all legal formalities handed over the dead body to him and deceased was cremated in his village. He disclosed that G.R.P., Arrah, registered a U.D. Case vide Case No. 12 of 2000 on 31/5/2000 and after investigation in the final report it was concluded that death of his son had occurred due to fall from the running train. 2. In the said case the respondent /Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata, appeared and filed written statement and stated that the accident was not an untoward incident in terms of provision contained in Section 123 of the Railway (Amendment ) Act, 1994 and denied about the liability and asserted that the appellant was not entitled to get any compensation in the case. After examining witnesses and evidences on record the learned Tribunal by the impugned order i.e. order dated 11/11/2011 dismissed the claim case i.e. Case No. OA 00086 of 2001, which has been assailed in the present appeal. 3. Sri Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal in a perfunctory manner has rejected the claim without assigning any cogent reason. 3. Sri Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal in a perfunctory manner has rejected the claim without assigning any cogent reason. He submits that U.D. case and final report along with the post mortem examination report were sufficient for coming to the conclusion that it was an untoward incidence and deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died due to fall from the running train. He submits that once police report showing death due to fall from the running train was already on record, the learned Tribunal was bound to allow the claim case. In support of his argument to this extent he has relied on 2007(4) T.A.C. 573 (A.P.)(Karri Nagamani and Others Versus Union of India); 2009(3) T.A.C. 349 (Cal.) (Asharani Das Versus Union of India and Another) & 2007(3) T.A.C. 838 (Bom.) (Mehar Parveen and Another Versus Union of India and Others). He submits that in the aforesaid cases different High Courts have held that ignoring F.I.R. and police report a claim petition may not be rejected. Accordingly, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondent to pay compensation amount of Rs. 4,00000/- (Rupees four lacs) as was claimed before the Tribunal. 4. Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India through Eastern Railway, Kolkata, has opposed the prayer of the appellant. He submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim case. He further submits that right from the very beginning the claimant / appellant had come out with a case that deceased after purchasing ticket had boarded train at Arrah railway station and deceased had taken journey for Patna but fell down at Jamira halt and subsequently died. Even in the claim petition as well as affidavits of AW-1 & AW-2 i.e. Annexures A1 & A2 specific case of claimant was that the deceased had purchased ticket at Arrah railway station for a journey from Arrah to Patna. However, during cross –examination, the AW -2, who has come out with a case that deceased had purchased ticket in his presence, has stated that on 28th May, 2000, his cousin brother (deceased) had come to his house and on 30th May, 2000 he left the place. While going for Patna he left his house for Jamira halt, which was nearer to his house. While going for Patna he left his house for Jamira halt, which was nearer to his house. AW-2 further stated in his cross – examination that he accompanied the deceased up to Jamira halt and in his presence the deceased purchased ticket. According to Sri Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, the statement of AW-2 that deceased had purchased ticket and boarded the train at Jamira halt makes it clear that the case of claimant that deceased had boarded the train at Arrah for Patna was itself incorrect and false. It was argued that regarding the accident nothing was stated or disclosed either by the driver or guard of the said train. No memo was issued or brought on record to show that any passenger had fallen from the running train. It was further argued that inquest report was prepared in hospital. The deceased died in Sadar hospital, Arrah, where inquest report was prepared. In the inquest report also nothing was mentioned regarding recovery of traveling ticket. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/Railway that for the purposes of claiming compensation first of all onus was on the claimant to establish a case that deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in a railway accident. He submits that the disclosure of the purported eye witness i.e. AW-2 regarding purchasing ticket at Jamira halt falsifies the whole case of the claimant. He submits that in view of facts and circumstances of the present case, the decisions (supra) referred by the learned counsel for the appellant are not of any help. Accordingly, it was prayed to reject the appeal. 5. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the material available on record. In this case, by order dated 15/3/2012 , Lower Court Record was summoned and same is available on record. I have perused the Lower Court Record also. After going through the Lower Court Record it is evident that in the claim petition the claimant had taken a specific stand that deceased had boarded train at Arrah for going to Patna. In the case only witness who had claimed to have seen that deceased had purchased ticket and boarded the train is AW-2, namely, Balram Singh (cousin of the deceased). AW-2 in his cross – examination has come out with a case that deceased had purchased ticket at Jamira halt. In the case only witness who had claimed to have seen that deceased had purchased ticket and boarded the train is AW-2, namely, Balram Singh (cousin of the deceased). AW-2 in his cross – examination has come out with a case that deceased had purchased ticket at Jamira halt. In the present case there is nothing to show that any one had seen the deceased falling from the running train at Jamira halt nor there is any document to corroborate that deceased had fallen from running train at Jamira halt. Even fardbyan in the case was recorded in Sadar hospital, Arrah. The fardbyan of uncle of deceased was recorded in Sadar hospital, Arrah, that too, after the death of his deceased nephew. It has been stated in the fardbyan of Kamla Prasad Singh ( uncle of the deceased) that on 31/5/2000 at about 10 a.m. he got information from Natwar Police Station that his nephew had died in a train accident (Vªsu ls dV dj ej x;k gSA). The informant had further disclosed in his fardbyan that he was informed by the persons present in hospital that deceased had died due to fall from the train and thereafter he was carried by the nearby villagers of Jamira to hospital. Even before the Tribunal Kamla Prasad Singh was not produced for his examination, though he had stated on the basis of hearsay in his fardbyan. Moreover, the contradictory statement of AW-2 on the point of boarding the train by the deceased at Jamira halt though the claimant had taken stand that deceased had boarded the train at Arrah makes it clear that appellant had not approached the Tribunal with clean hand. In such situation the Tribunal had no option but to reject the claim in view of specific contradiction and doubtful nature of the evidences brought on record in the present case. The court is of the opinion that decisions (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant may not help the appellant in the present case. I do not find any defect in the order or any ground for allowing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.