JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred by the claimants-appellants questioning the validity of the order dated 05.04.2013, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants for awarding compensation on account of alleged untoward incident in which the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 had died, has been rejected. 3. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides that if in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then, irrespective of the fact there has been or there has not been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration, it would entitle the dependents of a passenger, who has been killed, to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof. 4. Section 123 (c) of the Railway Act, 1989 defines "untoward incident", which inter-alia means accidentally falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Thus, dependents of the deceased passenger would be entitled to claim of compensation from the Railway Administration only in case an untoward incident takes place as described in Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989. 5. The case set up by the appellants-claimants before the Tribunal was that an untoward incident in the form of accidentally falling of the deceased passenger, late Yogendra Prasad Mishra from the Train No. 559 up (Banaras-Allahabad) passenger had occurred on 06.11.2007, as such they, being heirs of late Yogendra Prasad Mishra, are entitled to be paid compensation by the Railway Administration. 6. Unfortunately, the appellants-claimants could not establish and prove that death of Yogendra Prasad Mishra had occurred on account of his accidentally falling from Train No. 559 up. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is otherwise. 7. The claim put forth by the appellants-claimants before the learned Tribunal below for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of death of Yogendra Prasad Mishra was based on an assertion that on 06.11.2007, the deceased boarded Train No. 559 up from Jhusi in order to go to Allahabad after purchasing journey ticket No. 20508. It was further stated by the appellants-claimants that deceased accidentally fell down from the train at Jhusi Railway Station and got severe injuries, hence succumbed to death on the spot. It was further stated by the appellants-claimants that deceased accidentally fell down from the train at Jhusi Railway Station and got severe injuries, hence succumbed to death on the spot. The claimants filed photocopy of the certain documents, such as panchanama, post-mortem report, journey ticket and police GD. 8. The claim of the appellants was contested by the Railway Administration by filing written statement, denying the facts mentioned in the claim petition and submitting that no occurrence took place as mentioned by the appellants and in fact the deceased did not accidentally fell down from the train in question and further that he was not a passenger of the said train. It was pleaded by the Railway Administration that in view of the report submitted by the Station Superintendent, the deceased was run over by some train other than the train No. 559 Up at 15.45 hrs. It was further pleaded that train No. 559 Up arrived at Jhusi Railway Station at 18.06 hrs. and departed from Jhusi Railway Station at 18.08 hrs. The Railway Administration, thus, pleaded that train No. 559 Up departed about 2-1/2 hrs. after the dead body was sealed. 9. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed following four issues; (1) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question? (2) Whether incident of death of the deceased falls under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 12-A of the Railway Act? (3) Who are dependents of the deceased ? (4) To what relief the claimants are entitled to? 10. So far as the issue as to whether the claimants are dependents of the deceased is concerned, the learned Tribunal gave a finding that in absence of any evidence in rebuttal by the Railway Administration, the claimants are dependents of the deceased Yogendra Prasad Mishra in terms of the provision contained in Section 123(b) of the Railway Act. 11. The two issues as to whether the incident of death of the deceased can be said to be an untoward incident and as to whether the deceased was bonafide passenger of the train in question were decided against the appellants-claimants and in favour of Railway Administration. 11. The two issues as to whether the incident of death of the deceased can be said to be an untoward incident and as to whether the deceased was bonafide passenger of the train in question were decided against the appellants-claimants and in favour of Railway Administration. Dealing with aforesaid two issues, the learned Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence led by the appellants i.e. train journey ticket No. 20508, affidavit of one Rajendra Prasad Mishra and post-mortem report. The evidence led by the Railway Administration have also been considered. 12. On the basis of overall analysis of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal relying upon the statement made by one Ashwani Kumar, Sr. CMI/C has found that the same was supported by the documentary evidence. Sri Ashwai Kumar filed affidavit after proper enquiry. It was found that the deceased was run over by Goods Train No. Up BCN, while crossing the track negligently under the bogie of the standing goods train, when it started moving and he was run over by the said goods train. In the affidavit it was also stated by Sri Ashwani Kumar that arrival and departure time of train No. 559 Up at Jhusi Station on 06.11.2007 was 18.06 hrs and 18.08 hrs. but the deceased was run over by the goods train at 15.45 hrs. i.e. 2 hrs. and 20 minutes before the train No. 559 Up arrived at Jhusi railway station. The Railway Administration had filed arrival and departure details of train No. 559 Up and an extract of Station diary. 13. On the basis of various documentary evidence adduced by the Railway Administration, the learned Tribunal found the version stated in the affidavit by Ashwani Kumar to be correct. While arriving at such conclusion, it has also been found by the learned Tribunal that the documents filed by the Railway Administration were neither challenged nor rebutted on behalf of the appellants-claimants. 14. Another aspect which throw some light on the factum of death of the deceased is the Post Mortem report which recorded two crush injuries on the body of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has stated that crush injuries can only happen if the body comes under the wheels of a running train. However, if the passenger falls from a running train, it is not possible that his body would be crushed by the wheels of the train. The learned Tribunal has stated that crush injuries can only happen if the body comes under the wheels of a running train. However, if the passenger falls from a running train, it is not possible that his body would be crushed by the wheels of the train. The learned Tribunal has given reasons therefor stating that distance between two rails of the broad gauge railway track is 5ft 6 inches. The width of railway coach, in case of a broad guage train, is 10 ft 6 inches. The width of a coach is 5 ft more than the distance between two rails and as such, the doors of the coach will be 2 ft. 6 inches away from the rail on both sides. 15. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, it has been concluded by the learned Tribunal that in these circumstances, it is not possible that body will come under the wheels and get crushed. 16. I have analyzed the entire judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal and find myself in agreement with the findings recorded therein. 17. It is noticeable that the learned Tribunal has rightly believed the version of accident, in which the deceased died, given by the witness-Ashwanit Kumar as his statement made on affidavit was fully corroborated and supported by the documentary evidences, namely, letter of Senior Divisional Safety Commissioner/RPF, report of Inspector/RPF, photocopy of an extract of station diary and TSR etc. The said documentary evidences were not rebutted by the claimants and hence, in my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in believing the version stated by Ashwani Kumar in respect of accident. 18. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tara Chand Mathur Vs. Union of India, through General Manager Northern Railway, F.A.F.O. Defective No. 763 of 2011, decided on 16.07.2010 has observed that in case a person falls down from a train ordinarily, the body would not be cut into two pieces. Not believing the version of the claimants in the said case, the Division Bench further observed that submission of the claimants would have carried weight in case the body of the deceased would not have been cut into two pieces and injuries would have been only of abrasions, contusions and laceration etc. 19. Not believing the version of the claimants in the said case, the Division Bench further observed that submission of the claimants would have carried weight in case the body of the deceased would not have been cut into two pieces and injuries would have been only of abrasions, contusions and laceration etc. 19. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tara Chand Mathur (supra), I do not find any infirmity or illegality so as to interfere in the judgment under appeal rendered on 05.04.2013 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, rejecting the claim petition No. OA/II/U/237/08. 20. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. 21. However, there will be no order as to costs.