CAV ORDER The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been preferred against judgment and order dated 14-02-2013 passed by Sri J.D. Goswami, Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”). By the said judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Application No. OA 00354 of 2002. 2. Short fact of the case is that on 31-10-2002, a claim application under Section 16 of the Act was filed on behalf of appellant in the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lacs) on the ground that in an untoward incident, which had taken place on 10-08-2002, one Narpat Singh, father of the appellant died. In the claim application, it was disclosed firstly that on 10-08-2002, the deceased was going home from Danapur. After purchasing a valid railway ticket, the deceased boarded a train i.e. 519 Up Patna Ara Passenger at Danapur Railway Station. After getting into the train, the train started, but due to heavy rush inside the compartment, the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train near the western cabin of Danapur Railway Station. As a result of which, he died on spot. As per the claim application, the matter was reported to Rail Police, Danapur and accordingly, a U.D. Case No. 9 of 2002 was registered. The police after investigation found the factum of the accident true. It was claimed that deceased died in an untoward incident. Besides filing application under Section 16 of the Act, the appellant also filed an affidavit corroborating his case, which was filed on 27-08-2012. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/Railway also appeared and filed written statement refuting the claim. Before the Tribunal, to establish the case, only appellant was examined as a witness and besides his oral evidence, he brought on record copy of memo, which was addressed to G.R.P. by Station Master, Danapur i.e. Ext. A-2, copy of application of the appellant addressed to the officer incharge railway police station, Danapur marked as Ext. A-3, copy of F.I.R. of U.D. Case Ext. A-4, copy of final report Ext. A-5, copy of inquest report Ext. A-6, copy of post-mortem report Ext. A-7, copy of Voter I-Card of Satyadeo Singh appellant Ext. A-8 and copy of Voter I-Card of deceased Narpat Singh as Ext. A-9. 3. A-3, copy of F.I.R. of U.D. Case Ext. A-4, copy of final report Ext. A-5, copy of inquest report Ext. A-6, copy of post-mortem report Ext. A-7, copy of Voter I-Card of Satyadeo Singh appellant Ext. A-8 and copy of Voter I-Card of deceased Narpat Singh as Ext. A-9. 3. The learned Tribunal in the case framed four issues and finally, he rejected the claim application by its judgment/order dated 14-02-2013, which has been assailed in the present appeal. 4. Sri A.N.Mishra, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Anant Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the evidence, in a mechanical manner, has rejected the claim application. He submits that before the Tribunal, evidences were brought on record to establish that the deceased, after purchasing a valid ticket, had boarded the train at Danapur Railway Station, however; due to heavy rush and jolt, he fell down near the western cabin of the Danapur Station and received multiple injuries and he succumbed. He submits that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger and it was an untoward incident. Learned counsel for the appellant has further emphasized that the Tribunal has incorrectly concluded that it was death due to run over, not due to fall from the running train. He further submits that the learned Tribunal on imaginary ground has concluded that it was a case of run over and deceased was not a bona fide passenger. He submits that the order of the Tribunal being mechanical is liable to be set aside and the appellant, whose father died in an untoward incident, is entitled to get compensation, as was claimed, before the Tribunal. 5. Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/Eastern Railway, Kolkata has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. He submits that from the evidences on record, it is very much clear that in the morning, an unidentified dead-body was found in the middle of the track near western cabin of Danapur Railway Station. The villagers informed the Station Master and thereafter, the Station Master prepared a memo, which is Ext. A-2, which was addressed to the officer incharge, Railway Police Station, Danapur. He further submits that inquest report was prepared, thereafter, at about 8:30 A.M., the dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination. Sri Singh has taken the Court to Ext. The villagers informed the Station Master and thereafter, the Station Master prepared a memo, which is Ext. A-2, which was addressed to the officer incharge, Railway Police Station, Danapur. He further submits that inquest report was prepared, thereafter, at about 8:30 A.M., the dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination. Sri Singh has taken the Court to Ext. A-2 i.e. memo of Station Master, which suggests that the unidentified dead-body was found in the middle of up railway line near up inter starter, Danapur. The said information to the railway authority was given by the villagers to the western cabin. He has also placed Ext. A-3 and submits that the application, which was filed by the appellant Satyadeo Singh to the officer incharge, Danapur Railway Station, makes it clear that nothing was indicated as from which train deceased had fallen. However, subsequently, the case was developed as if deceased had fallen from 519 Up Patna Ara Passenger train. He submits that since doubtful evidences were brought on record from the side of the claimant/appellant, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim, which requires no interference. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that in the claim application, which was filed under Section 16 of the Act, it was specifically mentioned that on 10-08-2002 the deceased was going from Danapur, however; at much belated stage on 27-08-2012, an application was filed with a prayer to make correction in respect of date of the accident and instead of 10-08-2002, it was submitted that date of accident was 09-08-2002. The said application was accepted by the Tribunal and on 28-09-2012 the said petition was allowed and thereafter, correction was made in the application of the appellant on 29-09-2012, and the date of accident from 10-08-2002 was corrected as 09-08-2002. The step, for making a prayer for correction of date, creates a doubt on the case of the claimant. It appears that subsequently after noticing the fact that the cabin man was informed by the villagers regarding presence of an unclaimed dead-body in the middle of the railway line and subsequently, vide memo i.e. Ext. A-2 the Station Master, Danapur informed the officer incharge Railway Station, Danapur at 6:30 A.M. on 10-08-2002, the appellant took step for getting date of accident shifted from 10-08-2002 to 09-08-2002. Moreover, in the memo i.e. Ext. A-2 the Station Master, Danapur informed the officer incharge Railway Station, Danapur at 6:30 A.M. on 10-08-2002, the appellant took step for getting date of accident shifted from 10-08-2002 to 09-08-2002. Moreover, in the memo i.e. Ext. A-3, the application of the appellant, which was addressed to the officer incharge, Danapur Rail Police, the appellant had not disclosed the train number. It is appropriate to reproduce Ext. A-3, which is as follows:- ^^ lsok esa] jsy Fkkuk izHkkjh] nkukiqj A Ekgk’k;] Lkknj lqfpr djuk gS fd eSa lrnso flag firk Lo0 ujir flag] lk0 xzke & Hknoj] Fkkuk & pkWanh] ftyk & Hkkstiqj gS A gekjs firk ujir flag vkj- ih- ,Q- ds jsVk;j vkj{kh Fks dy fnukad 9-8-2002 dks dSUV ls vius dkMZ ij lEeku ysus vk, oks tks dSUV ls okil ?kj tkus ds dze esa pyrh V~zsu ls vUcSysUl gksdj fxj tkus ,oa V~zsu ls cqjh rjg dV tkus ds dkj.k mudk LoxZokl if’pe dsfcu ds if’pe flXuy ds ikl vi&ykbu ij gks xbZ gS A bl lEcU/k esa fdlh izdkj dk ld lqHkk gesa rFkk gekjs ifjokj dks ugha gS gekjk iqjk fo’okl gS fd fdlh pyrh V~zsu ls vucSysal gksdj fxj tkus ,oa cqjh rjg ls dV tkus ds dkj.k mudk e`R;q gqvk gS A vr% Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS fd mfpr dkjZokbZ djus dh d`ik dh tk, A Xkokg vkidk fo”oklh /keZohj izlkn lR;nso flag jkey[ku flag 10@8@02 ** 7. In the application dated 10-08-2002, addressed to the officer incharge, which is of the appellant, it is very much evident that appellant had made specific assertions that death had occurred after losing balance and falling from any running train. 8. In view of the specific assertions made by the appellant himself, it is evident that even after the date of occurrence, while the appellant was informing the police regarding the occurrence, he was not aware as to how death had occurred. Moreover, no railway ticket was recovered either from possession of the deceased or from the place of accident. Before the Tribunal, only witness was examined that is the appellant, who is son of the deceased and admittedly the appellant had not witnessed the occurrence. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not travelling with the deceased. All such circumstances, creates serious doubt on the case of the appellant. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application. 9. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not travelling with the deceased. All such circumstances, creates serious doubt on the case of the appellant. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application. 9. I do not find any ground for interfering with the order of the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.