IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that injuries or deaths occurring during the process of boarding or de-boarding a train are considered 'untoward incidents' under the Railways Act, and the principle of contributory negligence does not apply in such cases.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

2. In this appeal, filed under Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act of 1987'), the challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 31/8/2016, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur whereby the claim for compensation filed by the appellants/claimants came to be dismissed.

3. Background facts: Appellant No.1 is the wife of the deceased Syed Zafroddin. Appellant Nos. 2 to 8 are the children of the deceased. The appellants claimed that on 5/7/2013 the deceased was returning from Akola to Nandura by Amravati Bhusawal passenger train. The deceased was having two valid journey tickets. According to the appellants, the deceased fell from a train at Nandura railway station. He sustained severe injuries and died. According to them, the death of the deceased was in an untoward incident. The deceased was a bona fide passenger with valid journey ticket. On this count, they claimed compensation.

4. The respondent-railway contested the claim. According to the respondent, the deceased was not traveling with a valid journey ticket. It was further contended that the deceased was negligent while alighting from the train at Nandura railway station. He tried to alight the train from the wrong side and therefore, he fell from the train. The death was, therefore, not in an untoward incident.

5. The claimants/appellants adduced the evidence before the Tribunal. The evidence was not adduced by the respondent/railway. Learned Member of the Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence, found that the appellants were not entitled to get the compensation and ultimately dismissed the claim. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, the appellants are before this Court.

6. I have heard the learned Advocate Mr. C. A. Joshi, for the appellants and the learned Advocate Mrs. Neerja Choubey, for the respondent. I have perused the record and proceedings.

7. In the facts and circumstances, the following points fall for my determination:

i] Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling by the train in question with a valid journey ticket ? ii] Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident as understood by the provisions of 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

8. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that two railway tickets were found on the person of the deceased at the time of the panchnama. Learned Advocate submitted that the deceased was travelling by the train in question with a valid journey ticket and therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger could not be sustained. Learned Advocate submitted that in the factual background, the defence of negligence and/or death due to self inflicted injury is not available to the railway inasmuch as the deceased fell while de-boarding the train and sustained the injuries. Learned Advocate submitted that the railway has not adduced supporting evidence to substantiate its contention that the deceased while de-boarding the train from wrong side fell down and sustained injuries. Learned Advocate submitted that in the factual situation, the defence of negligence or death due to negligence is not available to the railway. Learned Advocate submitted that, in the teeth of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the death was not in an untoward incident cannot be sustained. In order to seek support for his submission, the learned Advocate relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India .v/s. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572.

9. Learned Advocate for the respondent, relying on the DRM report submitted that the inquiry conducted revealed that the deceased was seen while de-boarding the train from the wrong side. Learned Advocate submitted that the act of the deceased de-boarding the train from the wrong side at Nandura railway station would amount to negligence and as such, the