JUDGMENT :- (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 against the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2017 made in O.A. (II-U) No.138 of 2016 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Branch.) 1. The judgment dated 18.07.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA (II-U) No.138 of 2016 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The claimants are the appellants. 3. The claim petition was filed based on the facts as narrated in the application, which read as under: “The deceased was working as an Assistant in a Church at Palayamkottai. He used to travel to various places officially. Likewise on 14.12.2015 morning around 06.30 A.M, the deceased informed his wife through cell phone that he finished his work in a Church at Pommidi and returning to Tirunelveli by train. He came to Pommidi Railway Station, procured a travel ticket to travel from Pommidi to Tirunelveli (Ticket No.28182308) and travelled in train running towards Tirunelveli. While the train came in between Kovilpatti and Nalli Railway stations at KM 583/900-800, due to heavy crowd, high speed, jerk and jolt of the train, the deceased unexpectedly fallen down from the running train and, sustained fatal injuries all over the body and he died at spot. In the Postmortem Certificate, Assistant Surgeon District Government Headquarters Hospital, Kovilpatti, had certified that “Died of shock due to multiple injuries sustained”. The claimants crave leave of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench to read the Postmortem Certificate as part and parcel of this claim petition. Further, the FIR, Inquest Report and the Final Report clearly reveal that the death of the deceased is due to unexpected fall from the running train and hence it is an untoward Railway Incident and there are no other reasons to suspect the death of the deceased.” 4. The respondent-Railway disputed the claim petition by filing Reply Statement. The said statement reveals that the death itself is suspicious and the body was lying for a long time. In view of the fact that there are many contradictions and the death itself occurred in a suspicious manner, the claim petition is to be rejected. 5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and the evidences produced by the respective parties. 6. In view of the fact that there are many contradictions and the death itself occurred in a suspicious manner, the claim petition is to be rejected. 5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and the evidences produced by the respective parties. 6. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances as well as the contradictions regarding the informations provided and the cause of death. The findings arrived by the Tribunal, in paragraph-9 of its judgment, read as under: “9. When the factual aspects discussed herein above are analysed in its proper perspective, it would be noticed that the findings in the Post mortem holding that incident in question took place about 24 hours prior to autopsy, the only conclusion drawn would be the deceased was found dead on 15.12.2015 as the autopsy had been commenced at 02.45 PM and concluded at 03.45 PM on 16.12.2015, while the deceased's body was located by a Keyman on 15.12.2015 at around 17.00 hrs. When the distance between Bommidi Railway station and Tirunelveli Railway station was very long, the ticket allegedly used by the deceased on 14.12.2015 would be at variance. Timing of the death, as per DRM report, would be very close to finding of deceased's body on 15.12.2015 at around 17.00 hrs. As already noticed, distance between Bommidi and Kovilpatti would be around 430 Kms, though the distance between Bommidi and Tirunelveli, as per ticket issued, is 468 Kms. As such, even if it is presumed that deceased started journey on 14.12.2015 at early hours, around 07.00 AM, he would have reached Kovilpatti on the same date evening at about 19.45 hrs. If the above factual aspects are analysed in the context of discussion made herein above, there remains no other possibility to conclude to the effect such incident would have happened on 14.12.2015 itself, and not on 15.12.2015, when deceased's body was located by the Keyman of the section. Even if it is presumed that deceased would have suffered due to accidental fall, it is too much to expect to hold deceased's body would have remained unnoticed for almost 20 - 22 hours, though the spot of the incident is in between Madurai and Kanyakumari, which is very heavy section.” 7. Even if it is presumed that deceased would have suffered due to accidental fall, it is too much to expect to hold deceased's body would have remained unnoticed for almost 20 - 22 hours, though the spot of the incident is in between Madurai and Kanyakumari, which is very heavy section.” 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants made a submission that as per the Inquest Report, the death occurred in the nearby Railway Track while falling down from the running train. Mere Inquest Report alone cannot be a ground to consider the entire facts and circumstances. 8. The DRM Report filed, after conducting an investigation, reveals that it is clearly affirmed that there could be the chances that the dead body of the deceased might have placed by someone at the spot. 9. The findings of the Report further states that there is a contradiction in the Inquest Report and the Final Report prepared by the GRP, as the items i.e., Mobile Phone Number and the Train Ticket number, which have been mentioned in the Final Report, were not mentioned in the Inquest Report, especially in the particular Column No.7. 10. Thus, there was an inadequate proof that the deceased is a bona fide passenger. There was no report with regard to any untoward incident in the Sections between NLL and CVP and CVP or nearby Stations on 14.12.2015 and 15.12.2015. 11. When there was no information regarding any untoward incident reported in the Sections or nearby Stations on 14.12.2015 and 15.12.2015, there is no reason whatsoever to consider the case that the death occurred due to untoward incident by falling down from the running train as per Section 123 of the Railway Act, 1989. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances, the appellants could not able to establish that the death occurred due to falling down from the running train and the other facts stated are also contradictory and the Investigation Report also not in favour of the appellants. 13. This being the factum, this Court do not find any perversity or infirmity, as such, in respect of the findings arrived at by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench. Accordingly, the judgment dated 18.07.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA (II-U) No.138 of 2016 stands confirmed and consequently, CMA No.2427 of 2019 is dismissed. 13. This being the factum, this Court do not find any perversity or infirmity, as such, in respect of the findings arrived at by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench. Accordingly, the judgment dated 18.07.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA (II-U) No.138 of 2016 stands confirmed and consequently, CMA No.2427 of 2019 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.