ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 13.7.2017 passed in O.A. (IIU)/RNC/99/2016 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, whereby, the claim application filed by the claimants has been dismissed. 2. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was travelling in Sealdah-Varanasi Express and was returning to his home from Mumbai. He got run over at Taljhari Railway Station. The claimants received information from one Lalua Bhagat and when they reached the railway station they found that the body of the deceased was cut in two pieces. The death of the deceased occurred in a railway accident, thus, this claim application was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal. 3. The Railway Claims Tribunal considering the case of the applicants-claimants, dismissed the same vide award dated 13.7.2017 holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as his body was cut into two pieces, it cannot be said that he fell from the train and was run over. Based on the aforesaid finding, the claim application of the claimants has been dismissed. 4. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the judgment is absolutely unreasoned one, even it has not been discussed that on what materials, the aforesaid conclusion has been arrived at by the Tribunal. It is his case that respondent in their written statement had taken a plea that no ticket was found from the person of the deceased, which would be evident from the inquest report then, on what basis, the ticket was produced, which was relied upon by the Tribunal is not understood. He further submits that the conclusion that the body of the deceased was cut into two pieces suggests that the deceased tried to commit suicide, is absolutely beyond evidence and the case of the parties. As per him, not informing his parents that he was returning home cannot be said to be strange and cannot lead to a conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the said train. Thus the Tribunal could not have concluded that the incident is an untoward incident. He prays to allow this appeal. 5. As per him, not informing his parents that he was returning home cannot be said to be strange and cannot lead to a conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the said train. Thus the Tribunal could not have concluded that the incident is an untoward incident. He prays to allow this appeal. 5. Counsel for the Indian Railway submits that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as the ticket which was produced before the Tribunal suggests that the date of journey was 24.5.2016 whereas, the accident had occurred on 03.06.2016. Thus, the deceased was travelling with an invalid ticket and was not a bona fide passenger. As per him, the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the deceased committed suicide or the dead body was placed on the railway track for getting it run over, which disentitles the claimants from receiving compensation. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment. 7. The judgment as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, means, “the statement given by the Judge on the grounds for a decree or order”. Order 20 Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides what a judgment should contain. It shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision therein and the reasons for such decision. The judgment should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment. [Ref: Balraj Taneja vs. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396 ] 8. The grounds for its conclusion must be stated by the Court in the judgment. The judgment should contain reasons based on both oral and documentary evidence on the issue which is being decided by the Court. The points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision must be incorporated in the judgment. Those reasons, based upon which the conclusion of the Court is arrived at, must be supported by evidence on record. The points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision must be incorporated in the judgment. Those reasons, based upon which the conclusion of the Court is arrived at, must be supported by evidence on record. If the reasoning is not supported by evidence available on record, then they are not the reasons for the decision arrived at. To constitute a legal appreciation of evidence, the judgment should be such as to indicate that the court has applied its mind to it. Every portion of the judgment must indicate application of mind by the court to the evidence on record. The reason for the decision is an important ingredient of a judgment. [Ref: Yakub Abdul Razak Menom vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1 ] 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Jha vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519 has held that the reason is heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568 , in its paragraph-8 has held as under: “8..........Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made in other words, a speaking-out.” 10. After going through the impugned judgment/award, I find that the said judgment does not contain the conditions, which are necessary. Though the issues have been framed, but the same have been decided without considering the evidence. The Tribunal on the basis of conjecture and surmises has arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal relied upon a photocopy of the ticket which was produced but who had produced the said ticket and how it came in possession of the said producer, has not been mentioned. It is also not clear as to whether the said ticket was found from the person of the deceased during inquest or not. The Tribunal relied upon a photocopy of the ticket which was produced but who had produced the said ticket and how it came in possession of the said producer, has not been mentioned. It is also not clear as to whether the said ticket was found from the person of the deceased during inquest or not. The judgment is based on mere perception and not on evidence, as some adverse inference has been drawn on the conduct of the deceased which, when his brother called him, as he stated that everything is fine. The Tribunal concluded that this conduct is strange, as to why a person returning from Mumbai to his home, will not disclose the same and will disconnect the call only after saying that he is fine. This reasoning cannot be said to be a valid reason to arrive at a conclusion that the incident was not an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. The dead body was cut in two pieces, the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that this is a case of suicide. This finding is based on mere assumption. The Tribunal should not have assumed the aforesaid, when this is not the case of any of the parties. 11. Further the deposition of the witnesses, documents and the reports have not been discussed in the entire judgment. Thus, this judgment can be said to be a judgment without any reasons, which is not backed by oral and documentary evidence. Thus, the impugned judgment is set aside. 12. I remand this case to the Railway Claims Tribunal for deciding the issues afresh based on the evidence and the documents, led by the parties and also in view of the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 and Union of India vs. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410 . 13. Since this is a very old claim application i.e. of the year 2016, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. The parties have appeared before this Court. 13. Since this is a very old claim application i.e. of the year 2016, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. The parties have appeared before this Court. They are directed to appear before the Tribunal along with a copy of this order when the Tribunal will fix the date of hearing of the claim case. The parties are also directed to cooperate in early disposal of the said claim case before the Railway Claims Tribunal. 15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal is disposed of.