The main legal point established is that compensation cannot be granted under the Railways Act in cases of self-inflicted injuries due to criminal negligence, as provided in the first proviso to Section 124-A.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is filed by the appellants who were the applicants before the Railway Claims Tribunal. By this first appeal appellants/applicants impugn the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 10.5.2016 dismissing their claim petition. While the Railway Claims Tribunal has held that the deceased Sh. Manoj was a bonafide passenger, and also that the deceased died on account of fall from the train, however, it has been held that the deceased died on account of his own criminal negligence and hence the appellants/applicants were not entitled to compensation.

2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Sh. Manoj along with one Smt. Bindu was going from Kharawar to Daya Basti on 1.9.2014 in a Passenger Train no. 64912. It is pleaded that the deceased had boarded the train, when due to heavy rush and jerk in the train, he fell down from the moving train and received fatal injuries. The subject claim petition was therefore filed seeking statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lacs.

3. The Railway Claims Tribunal has held in para 10 of the impugned judgment that the deceased died on account of his own criminal negligence because the deceased had tried to board the train when the train had picked up speed and was travelling at about 20 kms per hour, and the train had crossed half of the platform. The deceased had come running from the side of the ASM’s office and tried to board the moving train. The deceased however could not board the train and instead collided with the train. This has been specifically deposed by Sh. Satish Kumar who was the guard of the train, and who deposed as RW-1. This statement of the guard Sh. Satish Kumar as RW-1 of the deceased trying to board the moving train which had left half of the platform and having a speed of 20 kms per hour remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. Accordingly, the Railway Claims Tribunal in terms of this finding dismissed the claim petition.

4. The issue of an untoward incident and entitlement to compensation on account of an untoward incident with respect to the train accident is a subject matter of Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. While interpreting these Sections it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others (2008) 9 SCC 527 and Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC 443 that even if a bonafide passenger is guilty of negligence yet compensation has to be awarded keeping in mind the conditions of the trains in this country. However the Supreme Court has in these very judgments has also clarified that if the bonafide passenger is guilty of criminal negligence, i.e self-inflicted injuries due to criminal negligence, then no compensation can be awarded under the Railways Act. In Jameela’s case (supra) Supreme Court has made the following observations:-

“7. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under Section 124A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railway that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness of the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railway that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under Section 124A of the Act.

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

10. It is not denied by the Railway that M. Hafeez fell down from the train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a "p