J.B. Koshy, J.

Claimant before the Railway Claims in O.A. No. 191 of 1996 is the appellant herein. On 13.11.1995 at about 7 A.M. while she was boarding the train Vanchinadu Express (Ernakulam Trivandrum) from Kottayam Railway Station, there was a sudden jolt, and the appellant lost her hold and slipped and fell on the rail through the gap between the platform and the train, thereby the train ran over to the foot of the Appellant cutting the same and she sustained injuries on both side of the eyes. The appellant's left leg was amputated and now she is using crutches and wheel chair. She claimed an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs as compensation. Respondent Railway pleaded that the applicant fell down due to her own negligence and applicant has to give proof that she was a bona fide passenger. In paragraph 5 of the reply statement it was also stated that liability of the respondent is subject to Railways Act, 1989 and Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. In effect it is admitted that appellant fell down from the train, but according to the Railway, she was not a bona fide passenger and if she is a bona fide passenger, she will get compensation only as per the Rules and not Rs. 4 lakhs as claimed by her.

2. Appellant's claim for compensation was dismissed by a Member (Technical) (Single Bench without judicial member) on the following reasons:

"(a) There is no evidence that she was a bona fide passenger; (b) There are no eye witnesses to the accident;

(c)Even the FIR was recorded by Head Constable K. 3495 after getting information from Gandhi Nagar Police Station and proceeding to the Medical College Hospital to record the statement of the applicant on 14.11.1995 i.e. the day after the acccident;

(d) Despite the averment of Pw. 3 that he had accompanied the applicant to the hospital and that the Police recorded the statement, no such statement has been produced to support his deposition; and

(e) The alleged handing over of the bag belonging to the applicant by the Station Master to Pw.3 and Pw.3 not checking its contents leads to the conclusion that no such bag was handed over to Pw. 3"

3. According to us the only contention worth consideration was whether she was a bona fide passenger as mentioned in reason (a) as in the reply statement itself it is accepted that she fell down from the train and she got injuries as a result of falling down from train. Therefore, registering of FIR by the Railway Police after getting information from Gandhi Nagar Police Station where Medical College Hospital is situated and where the appellant was treated after accident is of no consequence. Ext. PI FIR itself shows that she was taken to the Medical College Hospital from the spot by the Railway Police. Apart from PW. 1, PW.3 also spoke about the accident and there is no case for the Railway even in the pleadings that no accident occurred. The averment that appellant fell down from the train as alleged is admitted, but according to the Railway, that was caused due to negligence of the appellant. She fell down accidently. When there is 'untoward incident' even when no negligence is proved on the part of Railway Officers, Railway is liable to pay compensation as prescribed in the schedule. See S.124A and 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as amended by Railways (Amendment) Act, 28 of 1994. We also refer to the findings of a Division Bench of this Court in Vijayasankar v. Union of India (1995 (2) KIT 408).

4. Here Railway has no case that appellant attempted to commit suicide and she fell down from the train in a state of intoxication or insanity. There is no evidence to show that there is self inflicted injuries. Railway also did not prove negligence on the part of the appellant: Even if there is no negligence on the part of the Railway employees, it cannot be presumed that injuries caused to the victim of the accident are self inflicted injuries so as to deny compensation as provided under Railway Accidents and Untoward Incid