The main legal point established is the liberal interpretation of 'passenger' and 'untoward incident' under Section 124-a of the Railways act, emphasizing the 'no fault theory' and the benevolent nature of the provision.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Karnik, J. - The appellant Smt. Ratta Subhash Meshram (hereinafter referred to as 'Ratta' for short) has preferred this appeal u/s.23 of the Railways Claim Tribunal act, 1987 challenging the Judgment dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Member, Railway Claim Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has dismissed the claim application of Ratta for compensation.

2. The facts of the case pleaded in the claim application fled before the Tribunal are thus:-

Ratta's son Ravindra Subhash Meshram was traveling on 14.05.2018 by Train No.22512, Kamakhya Express from Gondia to Kamptee as a bonafde passenger on valid journey ticket No.49882389 dated 14.05.2018. While traveling in general compartment, Ravindra was standing near the door of the said train as the train was over-crowded. Due to heavy rush and sudden jerk, Ravindra lost his balance and fell down from the running train at Tumsar Road railway station yard, Line No.4 and died on the spot. It is pleaded that the deceased was bonafde passenger and he died in an untoward incident, hence, Ratta-the mother of Ravindra, being a dependent is entitled for compensation as per Section 124-a of the Railways act, 1989 ("Railways act", for short).

3. Learned counsel for Ratta, assailing the impugned judgment, contends that Ravindra had a valid journey ticket and therefore, the Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that Ravindra was not a bonafde passenger. She further submitted that the death of Ravindra was on account of fall from the train due to sudden jerk and hence Ravindra is entitled to compensation as Ravindra died in an incident which can be termed as an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of clause (c)(2) of Section 123 of the Railways act. according to her, the Tribunal is not justifed in holding that Ratta was not able to discharge her burden that Ravindra died on account of untoward incident.

4. The respondent Union of India through the General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, C.G. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Railway' for short) denied the averments made in the claim application fled by Ratta. Railway denied that Ravindra was a bonafde passenger. It is further denied that Ravindra died in an untoward incident. Railway pleaded that Ravindra died due to his own criminal and negligent act and the accident is a fall out of a self-inficted injury. according to Railway, the deceased committed suicide and therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation to Ratta. It is further submitted that the incident is not an untoward incident. It is pleaded that Railway is not responsible for the death of Ravindra and hence denied its liability to pay compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the Railway argued in support of the fndings in the impugned judgment. according to him, the train did not have a scheduled halt at Kamptee railway station and hence Ravindra cannot be said to be a bonafde passenger as his railway ticket was only upto Kamptee. Learned Counsel submits that Ravindra purposely boarded a wrong train to reach home faster. He further submitted that the incident in question is a result of a self-inficted injury, as Ravindra tried to de-board a running train which did not have a scheduled halt at Kamptee. Learned counsel invited my attention to the fndings of the Tribunal in support of his submissions.

6. The Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the impugned Judgment dismissed the claim application. The Tribunal in answer to issue No.1, held that Ratta is a dependent of Ravindra within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 123 of the Railways act. The Tribunal in answer to issue No.2, held that Ravindra was not a bonafde passenger as he had no valid journey ticket. Further in answer to Issue No.3, the Tribunal held that the accident was a result of self-inficted injury which falls under Clause (b) to proviso to Section 124a of the Railways act, according to which, Railway i