1. Heard. Admit. By consent, taken up for final hearing.

2. Perused Record and Proceedings.

3. By the present appeal, the claimant challenges the judgment and order dated 25th October, 2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur thereby dismissing the claim application filed by the applicant. The case of the applicant in the claim application in brief is as follows:

4. The appellant was travelling from Saundad to Barabhati by GondiaBallarsha train on 24.2.2016 after purchasing a valid journey ticket. The train reached Gond Umri Railway Station where it took a brief halt. As the train started, appellant fell down from the running train due to rush and sudden jerk of the train. The left leg of the appellant was cut as he came under the train. His left leg had to be amputated above the knee.

5. The appellant therefore filed the claim for compensation. The Ticket vendor of Gond Umri Railway station informed the station master about the incident. The station master informed the GRP Saundad. The appellant was taken to a nearby hospital where after he was admitted at Indira Hospital at Nagpur. The claim petition was therefore filed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/alongiwth 9 % interest from the date of the incident. The respondent/Railway filed written statement opposing the appellants claim. According to respondent the applicant tried to alight from a running train and fell down. The act of the appellant therefore is an offence under the Railways Act, 1989. The alleged incident therefore is not due to accidental fall from the train, but it is covered by explanation to the Section 124 A of the Act of Railways Act, 1989.

6. The learned Claims Tribunal was pleased to frame following issues:-

(i) Whether applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train on the relevant day with valid journey ticket?

(ii) Whether the Applicant proves that on the relevant day he sustained injuries in the train, in an untoward incident, in terms of Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989?

(iii) What relief ? What order?

7. The applicant was examined as AW1. Shri. Kailas Zingar Chandewar ticket seller of Gond Umri Railway Station was examined as RW1. Shri.Ajay Haridas Borkar, a passenger Guard also was examined. The guard General Book is marked as Exh.R.1.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket travelling from Saundad to Barabhati by GondiaBallarsha train. In his submission when the train started from Gond Umri station, the appellant fell down from the running train due to rush and jerk of the train. The left leg of the appellant had to be cut above the knee. Learned counsel submitted that having purchased a valid ticket from Saundad to Barabbhati there was no reason for the appellant to have alighted from the running train at Gond Umri Railway Station. In his submission it is obvious that the appellant fell down accidentally from the running train.

9. Shri. Lambat learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand invited my attention to the provisions of Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. In the submission of learned counsel the evidence of the eye witness RW1 Shri. Kailas Zingar Chandewar clearly records that the appellant tried to alight from the running train and despite warning him not to get down from the running train the appellant alighted. The appellant came under the wheels of the train while trying to alight from the running train. Learned counsel for the respondent therefore, contended that the act of the appellant comes under the scope of self inflicted injuries as explained in Section 124(1) (b) of the Railways Act, 1989. According to him in any case the act of the appellant is so rash and negligent that the same is squarely covered by the ambit of his own criminal act as per clause (c) of Section 124A of the Railways Act. He further submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of RW1 Kailas Chandewar. Le