K.M. Joseph, J.

1. One Jithu, aged 22 years, while travelling on the Manglore Mail on 12.11.2008 met with an untimely death as a result of his falling from the train. There is no dispute that he was sitting on the footboard of the train and the door of the coach hit the deceased as a result of which he fell down, sustained serious injuries and died. The appellants are his father and sister who is described as an unmarried sister. They claimed compensation on the basis that Jithu died as a result of the untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). The respondents filed counter affidavit. They have inter alia stated that the relatives of the deceased have given a statement that the deceased was travelling sitting near the door. Such travel is dangerous and a reckless act and therefore his fall was due to his own willful act for which Railway is exempted from paying compensation under Section 124A(b) of the Act. They also denied that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and denied all other claims putting the applicants to strict proof.

2. The Tribunal raised the following issues:

7 1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger, as alleged?

7 2. Whether the deceased died due to an untoward incident as alleged?

7 3. Whether the applicants are the only dependants of the deceased?

7 4. Whether the respondent is liable to pay compensation, If so, what amount?

7 5. Reliefs and costs?

3. Issue No.1 was answered in favour of the appellants. As far as issue No.2 is concerned, the Tribunal found that there is no doubt that the deceased had fallen from the train near Lakkidi railway station. It is also found that there is no dispute that the deceased was sitting near the door when he fell down from the train. It is further found that it is clear that there is no reason for him to sit near the door as his father, appellant No.1, claims that they were all sitting inside the coach in seats. The Tribunal also would state that the younger sister, namely, the second appellant says that, his father asked him to come back, but the deceased persisted in sitting near the door. The Tribunal further reasoned that sitting near the door is a dangerous and reckless way of travel and therefore the respondents are not liable to pay compensation and that the injuries sustained as a result of such travel is to be treated as `self inflicted injury'. It is found that, open door, as claimed by the appellants can suddenly close due to braking or acceleration which is the alleged reason for the accidental fall. It is further found that the first appellant is also aware of the danger of such travel and had, as the second appellant says, asked him to return to his seat. Yet the deceased had persisted in sitting near the door. There is no need to travel in such a manner as the deceased and the rest of the family had seats to travel. The method of travelling was found to be dangerous and his youth made him reckless. The travelling is found to be clearly adventurous and not necessary on that day. Injuries resulting from such behavior therefore have to be treated as self inflicted injuries. Thus the issue was answered against the appellants.

4. As far as issue Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, the Tribunal did not answer the said issues as the issues were no longer relevant . Consequently, issue No.5 was also answered against the appellants and the O.A. was dismissed.

5. We heard Adv. Ms.Lakshmi Rajan, learned counsel for the appellants and Adv.Sri.James Kurian, the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the approach of the Tribunal cannot be supported. It is submitted that this is not a case where there is a 'self inflicted injury' within the meaning of Section 124A of the Act. It is submitted that the words 'self inflicted injury' is not defined. She would draw our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Jameela v. Union