JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. In the instant appeal, the correctness of judgment dated 16.10.2015, passed in Case No. OA(IIa)/RNC/2010/0003, has been assailed. 3. As per the factual matrix before the Court below, husband of the applicant namely, Narayan Chandra Mahto, aged about 35 years, working as Railway Employee in the Carriage Department at Hatia Division, S.E. Railway, while traveling in general class of Burdwan passenger from Hatia to his residence at Silli had fallen down between Jonha and Kita Railway station and got injuries on his person and thereafter, he was first shifted to Muri and then taken to Gurunank Hospital, Ranchi by Ambulance from where he was referred to RIMS, Ranchi, where he was succumbed to injuries and died during the treatment on 17.12.2007. It has been stated that the purse containing the documents and ticket was not traceable. As it was the death due to accident by Railway, compensation was claimed by the applicant to the tune of Rs.4.00 lakh. 4. The Respondent-Railway contested the case by filing written statements and contended that the victim was not a bonafide passenger as the pass recovered from the possession of the deceased by the Trackman, Jag Mohan Baraik had already expired on 07.09.2007 and therefore, it was not valid on the date of incident. As per the inquiry report, the person was lying on the railway track in an unconscious stage and there was no eye witness to support his case. The DRM’s report based on the inquiry done under “the Railway Passengers (Manners of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rule, 2003” was filed. 5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, formulated the following issues for just adjudication of the case:- (I) Whether the deceased, Narayan Chandr Mahto, son of late Sufal Mahto was a bonafide passenger? (II) Whether the deceased was a Railway employee? (III) Whether the pass has been issued to the deceased, Narayan Chandra Mahto? (IV) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989 occurred to the Narayan Chandra Mahto, son of late Sufal Mahto while traveling in Burdwan Passenger from Hatia to Silli on 17.12.2007? (V) Whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any? 6. (IV) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989 occurred to the Narayan Chandra Mahto, son of late Sufal Mahto while traveling in Burdwan Passenger from Hatia to Silli on 17.12.2007? (V) Whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any? 6. In support of their claims, the applicants had filed documents along with claim petition and subsequently, even the certified copies of some of the documents were filed and they were marked as Exhibits. Though no any oral evidence was adduced by the respondent-Railway but the certified copies of the documents, on which the respondent-Railway wants to rely, were filed. Both parties were heard and the learned Tribunal came to a finding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as he was not having a valid ticket and it was not a case of untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994. 7. Assailing the correctness of the findings of the learned Tribunal, Mr. Rahul Gupta assisted by Mr. Avish Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law as from the facts of it, it appears that the ground on which the case of the applicants was turned-down is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel argued that illegally and arbitrarily without any evidence, the learned Tribunal came to a finding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and was not having any valid ticket, as the pass was expired. Learned counsel emphatically argued that the pass was never produced before the Tribunal nor any evidences were led on the ground that it was an expired pass. In absence of documentary evidence, which was not produced by the respondent-Railway, it could not have been inferred that it was an expired pass and as such, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and was not having a valid ticket. However, the DRM report is not controverted by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellants. Learned counsel further argued that as the death was admitted, it is a case of falling down from the train and as such, the appellants were entitled for compensation and the case of appellants ought to have been allowed, which was illegally and arbitrarily dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel further argued that as the death was admitted, it is a case of falling down from the train and as such, the appellants were entitled for compensation and the case of appellants ought to have been allowed, which was illegally and arbitrarily dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Mahesh Tewari assisted by Mr. Abhishek Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Railway submits that the DRM report is a valid report in the eyes of law. From very perusal of the Railway Act, it appears that the DRM report is based on the inquiry done under “the Railway Passengers (Manners of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003”. Learned counsel further argued that admittedly though the deceased was a railway employee and was having a pass, which must have been issued by a competent authority, but the date on which the deceased was traveling with the said pass, the same was not valid as it had expired and as such, it cannot be taken to be a valid pass/ ticket for traveling in the eyes of law. The other ground taken by the applicants for granting compensation is that the case of the deceased fall within the ambit of untoward incident. Learned counsel denied the said ground and submits that as the body of the deceased was found outside the track and there was no eye witness and none were examined on that point to say that the deceased fell down from the Train, it cannot be said to be a case of untoward incident and as such, both the grounds were not available to the learned counsel for the appellants and rightly, the case of appellants has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 9. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, on perusal of the records including the Lower Court’s Records, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference on the following grounds:- (I) The victim was not having a valid pass/ ticket since as per the report of the DRM, it was an expired pass so merely having a pass which is not valid in the eyes of law, cannot be taken to be a valid ticket and therefore, it can be inferred that the victim was not having a valid ticket and as such, he was not a bonafide passenger. (II) The appellants also failed to produce the Police documents including the final Police report which after due investigation finally concludes on the cause of the death and as such, it rightly was held that the appellants-applicants failed to discharge the initial burden of proof that Sri Narayan Chandra Mahto, since deceased, was injured due to accidental fall from the train and died subsequently, as alleged. Thus, it was rightly inferred by the learned Tribunal that the deceased was not a victim of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994. 10. This Court is in full agreement with the findings of the learned Tribunal. 11. Resultantly, the instant Misc. Appeal fails and hence, it is dismissed. 12. Office is directed to return the lower Court records to the Court below at the earliest.