The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of 'no fault liability' under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which holds the railway administration liable to pay compensation regardless of any wrongful act, neglect, or default on their part.

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. A moment's inattentiveness cost Dasarath Yadav his life. While traveling from Burdwan Railway Station to Howrah Railway Station on 2nd October, 2003 in a local train, he peeped his head out of the compartment door to spit and in the process his head collided with a post by the side of the railway track resulting in his accidental fall from such train near Janai Road Railway Station. Dasarath died on the spot leaving behind him the appellant and a minor child as his surviving legal heirs.

2. The appellant having lost her husband approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata on 29th September, 2004 with a claim application, numbered as U/752/204 seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Tribunal framed the following issues for decision:

"1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide Railway Passenger?

2. Whether the deceased fell down from a running train and died thereof and if so, whether this incident is covered as an 'Untoward incident' in terms of provision of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989?

3. Whether the Applicants, as dependants of the deceased, are entitled to get any compensation, as prayed for?

4. To what other relief, if any, the Applicants are entitled?"

3. In its judgment dated 27th September, 2007, the tribunal answered issue nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant. Issue no.3 was decided against the appellant, as a sequel whereof she was held not entitled to any relief and consequently the claim applications stood dismissed on contest, without costs.

4. While answering issue no.3 the tribunal recorded as follows:

"***Therefore, it can be clearly concluded that the deceased of this case was a victim of his own imprudent act like peeping out from the train for the purpose of spitting. Though it has not pleaded in the written reply that the injury sustained by the victim was a self-inflicted injury but it has pleaded that the deceased fell down from the running train due to his own negligence and carelessly without watching the post invited the danger. It can easily be inferred that the Respondent Railway has mean to plead self-inflicted injury. Since the victim was hit by Electric Post, it clearly suggests the carelessness and negligence on the part of the victim. Message are displayed in the Railway premises and in the coaches warning the passengers not to indulge in careless and negligence act, such as, leaning out of the running train etc. Rule 238 of the Railway Coaching Tariff warns passengers against leaning out of the carriage as that practise is dangerous to the passengers themselves. Section 154 of the Railways Act states that if any person in a rash and negligent manner does any act and the act is likely to endanger the safety of any person traveling, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent (sic extend) to one year or with fine or with both. The conjoint interpretation of the above provision is that act of leaning out of the compartment is a rash and negligent act, punishable under law. Thus, in the instant case, the victim had sustained injury by his own act."

5. Dismissal of the claim application by the tribunal, as aforesaid, is under challenge before us in this appeal at the instance of the unfortunate unsuccessful appellant.

6. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the appellant submits that the tribunal committed gross jurisdictional error in dismissing the claim application. According to him, the tribunal failed to construe Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989 (hereafter the Act) in the proper perspective and returned findings which are indefensible. Citing the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 : Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, he contends that Section 124-A of the Act envisions the concept of "no fault liability" and thus, irrespective of whether the victim of an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c) of the Act is at fault or not, a claim application would be maintainable at the instance of