JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act by the claimant-appellants, praying for setting aside the award dated 6th September, 2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2015/0007, whereby the claim application of the claimant-appellants was dismissed. 2. The deceased is the husband of claimant No.1. Said Birendra Gousami @ Biru Gousain had gone to Dhanbad from Katrasgarh by passenger train on 25.10.2012. He purchased a ticket at Katrasgarh for returning to Dhanbad and was waiting for the train, but, met with an accident with the passenger train No.5334 near Poll No. KTH 5A and 6A near Katrasgarh Station. He died due to the said accident. It is alleged that the train ticket got lost after the said accident. Thus, the claim application was filed. 3. Respondents appeared and filed their written statement, alleging that the accident is not an untoward incident, rather it had happened due to negligence of the deceased. Accident occurred near Western Cabin of Katrasgarh near Pole No. KTH 5A and 6A where the deceased was hit by train, thus, railway is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, Tribunal had framed three issues, which are as follows:- 1. Whether Birendra Gouswami @ Biru Gousain is a bonafide passenger as alleged? 2. Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to him while travelling by Tr. No.5334 passenger train from Katrasgarh to Dhanbad on 25.10.2012? 3. Whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any? 5. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant, who are A.W.1 Kanchan Devi, who is the applicant herself; A.W.2 Sharawan Goswami and A.W.3 Subodh Kumar Soni. Several documents were also exhibited. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents on record, dismissed the application holding that the incident is not an untoward incident and thus, the claimants are not entitled for any relief. 7. Challenging the said order, appellants have approached this Court by filing this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence of A.W.1, A.W.2 and A.W.3 clearly suggests that the accident is an untoward incident within the definition of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. 7. Challenging the said order, appellants have approached this Court by filing this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence of A.W.1, A.W.2 and A.W.3 clearly suggests that the accident is an untoward incident within the definition of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Since the death was due to an untoward incident, in terms of Section 124A of the Railways Act, claimants are entitled for the benefit. In support of his contention, he has referred to the judgment in the case of Union of India versus Rina Devi reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362 : (2019) 3 SCC 572 . 9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Railways, opposed the appeal and submitted that the evidence led by the parties clearly suggest that the accident do not fall within the definition of an untoward incident. The Tribunal has appreciated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. This finding of fact cannot be reappreciated by this Court, thus, no relief can be granted to the appellants. 10. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the entire record of the case including the Lower Court Records. 11. Case of the claimants is that the deceased went to Katrasgarh and thereafter purchased a return ticket for Dhanbad and was waiting for the train, but, in the meantime, met with an accident and his ticket, which he had purchased, got lost. It is not disputed that the claimants are heirs of the deceased and they can maintain this application seeking compensation. The question is whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not and the incident is untoward or not? The claimant-appellant has examined three witnesses and has also exhibited several documents. 12. A.W.1 is Kanchan Devi, who is appellant No.1. She stated that the deceased purchased tickets from Katrasgarh to Dhanbad and was waiting for the train. He was just roaming, when between Pole No. KTH5A and 6A a passenger train came and dashed him, resulting in his death. In cross examination at paragraph 6, she admits that she is not an eye witness to this incident. She stated that she is only a hearsay witness. 13. A.W.2 is Sharawan Goswami. He is the brother of the deceased. In cross examination at paragraph 6, she admits that she is not an eye witness to this incident. She stated that she is only a hearsay witness. 13. A.W.2 is Sharawan Goswami. He is the brother of the deceased. He stated that the deceased was supposed to return from Katrasgarh to Dhanbad, where he purchased ticket and was roaming around when the incident had taken place between Pole No.5A and 6A where the body was found. A UD case was also registered. In cross examination, at paragraph 4, he admitted that he is a hear-say witness and one Subodh, who was with the deceased had narrated the entire incident. 14. A.W.3 is Subodh Kumar Soni. He stated that he was with the deceased were supposed to return from Katrasgarh to Dhanbad. They purchased a ticket and they were at the platform. At that point of time, the deceased met with an accident between Pole No.5A and 6A, as a passenger train dashed him and the body was found between Pole No.KTH 5A and 6A. He stated in cross examination that both the deceased and he went to a fair organized on the occasion of Durga Puja. In paragraph 8, he admitted that his typed evidence was not read to him nor was it explained to him. In paragraph 10, he also admitted that he does not know what has been written in the evidence. 15. From the aforesaid oral evidence, it is clear that A.W.1 and A.W.2 are not eye witnesses and they got information from A.W.3. From the deposition of A.W.3, it is clear that he is not a reliable witness as he himself has stated that he does not know as to what has been written in the typed evidence, which was filed by way of deposition. Further, his statement does not speaks as to how the accident had occurred. He stated that after purchasing ticket, they were at platform, but, the deceased met with an accident between Pole No.5A and 6A. Aforesaid statement is absolutely not believable. To meet with the accident, either the deceased had to fall from the platform when the train was coming or would have fallen from the train, but, it is not the case here. How the accident had occurred has not been substantiated. Aforesaid statement is absolutely not believable. To meet with the accident, either the deceased had to fall from the platform when the train was coming or would have fallen from the train, but, it is not the case here. How the accident had occurred has not been substantiated. It is not a case that the deceased boarded the train and thereafter fell from the running train, which is evident from the evidence led on behalf of the claimant-appellants. Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act provides that accidental falling of any person from a train carrying passenger is an untoward incident. The evidence does not suggest that this is a case of accidental fall. Further, it is an admitted case of the appellant that dead body was found in between Pole No.5A and 6A on 26.10.2012 and a UD case was also registered. As per the oral evidence, the accident occurred on 25.10.2012. If the accident really had occurred on 25.10.2012, then why the UD case was registered on the next day, i.e., on 26.10.2012 at 10 a.m. It is not explained. The conduct of the A.W.3 does not suggest that he was at all with the deceased and the entire incident narrated by him, thus, is false. He has only been implanted for the purpose of this compensation case. 16. As per the records, the Pole No.5A and 6A is near the Western Cabin of Katrasgarh Railway Station, which is evident from the inquest report. This also suggests that the statement given by A.W.3 is false as A.W.3 has stated that they were roaming near the platform, when the accident had taken place. Further, coupled with the aforesaid facts, it is an admitted fact that the railway ticket was not produced. This clearly suggests that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as relied upon by the claimant-appellants is not applicable in the present facts, as this is not the case of the claimant-appellants that the accident had occurred while boarding or deboarding. 17. In view of what has been held above I find no ground to interfere with the impugned award dated 6th September 2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2015/007. I find no merit in this appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.