Abdul Rehim, J.

Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, who is the respondent in O.A. No.31/2006 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, is the appellant. The Tribunal allowed compensation of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to the applicants, who are wife and children of one Sri. K.A. Poulose, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in an “untoward incident” which took place on 26.2005 at Trichy Railway Station.

2. The applicants before the Tribunal contended that the deceased was a passenger in Train No.6177-A from Chennai to Trichy and when he tried to alight from the compartment at Trichy Station, the train moved with a jerk, thereby loosing his grip from the handle of the door and falling down between the train and platform. He succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. According to the applicants the deceased had purchased ticket to travel in the train, but the same was lost.

3. The appellant/respondent defended the claim disputing the version that the deceased fell down while alighting from the compartment at Trichy Station. The contention of the appellant was that on the particular date, train No.6177-A left from Trichy to Kumbakkonam without any detention or chain pulling and after the departure of the train only the deceased was found lying on the track with injuries. As per enquiry report of the Railway Police, the conclusion was that the deceased attempted to board the moving train No.6177-A bound for Kumbakonam from Trichy and there upon he fell down and was run over by train.

4. The appellant/respondent disputed the liability on the ground that the fall was due to rash and negligent act of the deceased himself and hence the incident does not attract the provision enabling payment of compensation for “accidental falling”. Consequently, it was contended that the injury sustained will amount to self inflicted injuries and therefore the appellant should be absolved form the liability under Section 124A (b) of the Railways Act 1989. It was also contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger since he failed to produce the journey ticket.

5. As per section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act 1989 “untoward incident” includes the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Here the disputes mainly pertains to the aspect as to whether the deceased fell down while alighting from the train when it reached at Trichy Station or while trying to board the moving train bound to Kumbakonam. However, the fall of the deceased was accidental, is not disputed by the appellant. No case has been put forth contending that it was a suicide or an attempt to suicide, or a self inflicted injury. There was no case that the injury was sustained due to any criminal act of the deceased or any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity. Therefore the appellant could not be heard to contend that the claim is not admissible because the accident is one falling under the proviso (a) to (e) of Section 124 A of the Railways Act 1989.

6. In the decision reported in Joji C. John vs. Union of India (2002 (1) KLT 678) a Division Bench of this court held that, when there is an “untoward incident” even when no negligence is proved on the part of Railway Officers, the Railway is liable to pay the compensation. Even if there is no negligence on the part of the Railway employees, it cannot be presumed that the injuries caused to the victim of the accident are self inflicted injuries so as to deny compensation as provided under Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules 1990.

7. This view has been further reiterated in a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008 (2) KLT 700 (SC). Interpreting the term “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers”, it is held that the term includes situation where a person is trying to board the tra