JUDGMENT :

1. By preferring this appeal appellant -General Manager, Central Railway, CST, Mumbai has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, in Claim Application No.56/OA-II/RCT/NGP/2006, dated 24.7.2009 Nagpur Bench Nagpur, whereby the claim of compensation was allowed by granting compensation at the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Present appellant is the original respondent preferred this appeal on the ground that the lady was running from bridge in order to catch the train in spite of instructions, she tried to board into the train and as a result came under the wheels. Thus, the deceased while attempting to catch the train felled down, sustained injuries and succumbed to the death. It is the contention of the appellant that it is not an untoward incident, but it is a self inflicted injury due to the negligence of the deceased and, therefore, railway is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents. However, learned trial Court has not considered the same and wrongly awarded the compensation.

2. Whereas, as per the contention of the respondents said accident took place when deceased was boarding in the train and succumbed to the death, she accidentally felled down and, therefore, Railway is liable to pay compensation.

3. Taking into consideration the rival contentions parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing both the sides learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the deceased Deeplaxmi was the bona fide passenger of the train at the relevant day. The Tribunal had also come to the conclusion that the alleged incident covered under the untoward incident and, therefore, Railway is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has considered that the passenger is trying to enter into the train and as a result felled down, sustained injuries which is an untoward incident under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

4. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Neerja Choubey appearing for the appellant and also heard learned Advocate Mr. P.S. Mirache, for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

5. It has been vehemently argued by the learned Advocate Ms. Neerja Choubey that the deceased Deeplaxmi was not having ticket for boarding the train, therefore, she was not the bona fide passenger. In fact, she was attempting to catch the train in spite of repeated instructions to her not to catch the train. The incident took place due to her negligence and it is self inflicted injury, therefore, Railway is not liable to pay compensation.

6. On the other hand, learned Mr. P.S. Mirache submitted that merely because ticket was not found from the dead body, it cannot be said that she was travelling without ticket. The possibility that ticket may have been lost during the course of untoward incident cannot be ruled out and, therefore, presumption needs to be drawn that the deceased was bona fide passenger. He further submitted that the issue regarding self inflicted injury and interpretation regarding the untoward incident is interpreted by the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The intent of the person behind self inflicted injury is to be proved as self inflicted injury require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence on any particular degree. In support of the contention he placed reliance on Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 1895, wherein it is held that a passenger trying to board a moving train, fell down and died, Railway Authority liable to pay compensation even if there was no fault on the part of the Railways. He further placed his reliance in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, reported in 2018 (3) TAC 26, wherein it is held that the self inflicted injury require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Lastly, he placed reliance on reported in Dalit and others Vs. Union of India, through General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, reported in 2019 (6) BCR 444, wherein it is h