JUDGMENT

A S Chandurkar, J. - This appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Accident Claims Tribunal Act,1987 has been filed by the claimant as she is aggrieved by the dismissal of the application seeking grant of compensation under the provisions of Section 16 of the said Act.

2. The facts in brief are that one Ravi Thaokar was travelling by Train No.371 Up after purchasing a Second Class Ticket bearing No.60597 dated 12-2-1998. While boarding the train at Tumsar Road Railway Station on account of sudden jerk given by the engine said Ravi Thaokar lost his balance and fell down as a result of which he received fatal injuries. On that basis the mother of the deceased filed an application for grant of statutory compensation.

Reply was filed on behalf of the Railways in which it was denied that the accident occurred on account of any untoward incident. It was denied that the accident was caused on account of dash given by the railway engine.

3. The claimants led evidence before the Claims Tribunal. After considering the same, the Claims Tribunal held that as the claimant had failed to prove that the deceased had a fall on account of jerk as received, the case did not fall within the scope of it being "untoward incident". The claim for compensation was therefore dismissed. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed the present appeal.

4. Shri M. R. Kalar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the Railway Ticket bearing No.60597 was placed on record. The sister of the deceased had been examined and she had clearly deposed that her brother had fallen from the train while trying to board it. In the light of this evidence and there being no contrary evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the accident did not amount to "untoward incident". Placing reliance on the decision in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, (2018) AIR SC 2362 , it was submitted that the appellant was entitled for being granted statutory compensation as per the amended Rules of 2016.

5. Shri N. P. Lambat, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. According to him, in absence of any evidence to indicate an accidental fall and in view of negligence on the part of the deceased, the claim was rightly dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. The evidence of the sister of the deceased was not sufficient to entitle the claimant for grant of compensation. He therefore submitted that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

6. The following points arises for determination: Whether the claimant is entitled for grant of statutory compensation?

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and I have perused the records of the case. The claimant has placed on record the Second Class Ticket bearing No.60597 for travelling from Tumsar Road to Chacher. The deposition of the sister of the deceased - Bayabai at exhibit AW-2 indicates that she was traveling along with her brother in the said Train after purchasing the tickets. She sat inside the train and she saw her brother falling from the Train. This piece of evidence indicates that the accident occurred when the deceased was boarding the train and it cannot be said that the same was not a result of an "untoward incident".

8. In Rina Devi (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court in paragraph 16.6 of the judgment has observed as under:

"16.6. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ''self inflicted injury'' would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ''no fault theory''. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ''no fault theory'' under Section 163A of the Motor Vehi