The appellant, who boarded the Farakka Express from Delhi on May 31, 2010, claimed he was en route to Ara Junction. Upon the train’s arrival at Dumraon, he stepped off to drink water. However, when he attempted to board again, he found the compartment overcrowded. In the ensuing chaos, he fell from the moving train, resulting in a severe injury that necessitated amputation below his left knee. The petitioner’s account detailed that he was first taken to Sadar Hospital in Buxar and subsequently transferred to Sparsh Heritage Hospital in Patna. A police statement was recorded only on June 10, 2010, prompting the petitioner to file a compensation claim based on these events.

The respondent refuted the claim, asserting that the petitioner was not a bona fide passenger of the train. They argued there was no evidence of a ticket purchase or eyewitness accounts confirming that he had boarded or traveled on the train. Furthermore, the absence of a police report or documentation from the railway authorities raised significant doubts about the veracity of the claim.

Upon examination, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner failed to establish himself as a bona fide passenger and did not convincingly demonstrate that his injuries resulted from an untoward incident as defined by the Railway Act. The absence of corroborative evidence, such as reports from Dumraon Station or Buxar Hospital, undermined the petitioner’s case. Additionally, the claimed certificate from Buxar Station lacked clarity and authenticity, further complicating the situation.

Despite the appellant's testimony that passengers had assisted him after his fall, no witnesses were presented to support this claim. The Tribunal highlighted that the gaps in documentation and the significant delay in police involvement—nearly ten days after the alleged incident—cast doubt on the entire narrative.

Moreover, the appellant introduced new information during the appeal, claiming he had traveled with a brother. However, no corroborative evidence, such as his brother’s testimony or ticket, was provided to support this claim, further weakening the appellant's case.

In light of the evidence—or lack thereof—the Tribunal found no compelling reason to overturn its initial ruling. The failure to substantiate the claim with credible evidence led to the dismissal of the appeal. This case underscores the importance of robust documentation and corroboration in claims made under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, illustrating the challenges faced by claimants in proving their cases without adequate evidence.