A. Hariprasad, J.

1. The prominent question that arises for consideration in this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is this:

When a person sustains injury while attempting to board a moving train from the off side (ie., from the side where there is no platform), can it be said that he suffers a self-inflicted injury under Section 124A Proviso (b) of the Railways Act, 1989?

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant facts are the following:

Appellant/applicant along with his daughter and brother's son went to Irinjalakuda from Changanacherry by train on 18.07.2010. He wanted to return to Changanacherry on the same day by another train. He reached Irinjalakuda station at about 3.15 p.m. and bought second class tickets for three adults. They went to the platform of the railway station. At that time, the train coming from Shornur and bound to Thiruvananthapuram was on the platform. His daughter entered the train. While the appellant was getting into the train, suddenly it started moving. His legs slipped and he fell from the train sustaining injuries all over body, including traumatic amputation of right leg below knee. He was taken to Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Irinjalakuda immediately after the accident. Thereafter, he was taken to Specialist Hospital, Ernakulam and amputation of right leg was done. He was treated there for three days and thereafter admitted in Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. From there, a secondary amputation was also done. Appellant claimed that he is entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (in short, “the Act”).

3. Respondent filed a reply statement contending that the appellant did not suffer any injury in an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c) of the Act. Report received from the Railway Administration shows that while the train was moving, the appellant tried to board it from the off side of platform No.2 at Irinjalakuda railway station and he fell down. Investigation report of the Divisional Railway Manager also reveals that the appellant attempted to entrain the moving train from the off side. Respondent contended that a person of ordinary prudence will understand the danger of entraining a moving train. Railway has many a times warned all passengers about the dangers of trying to entrain a moving train. The appellant, who was adventurous, reckless and unmindful of his age, attempted to board the moving train and that too from the off side. This deliberate act of the appellant tantamount to self-infliction of injury. Therefore, Railway Administration cannot be held liable to pay compensation for the self inflicted injury.

4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 and Exts.R1 to R4 were marked. PWs 1 and 2 were examined on the side of the appellant and RWs 1 and 2 on the side of the respondent.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent.

6. The Tribunal raised the following issues for trial:

“(1) Whether the applicant proves that he was a bonafide passenger for his journey with a valid ticket in Shoranur-Trivandrum Venad Express from Irinjalakuda to Changanacherry on 18.7.2010?

(2) Whether the applicants proves that he met with an accident U/s.123(c) of the Railways Act?

(3) Whether the respondent proves that they are exempted from payment of compensation vide S.124A of the Railways Act?

(4) Order?”

7. The Tribunal found that the appellant was a bonafide passenger. There is no challenge against this finding. Regarding the liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation, the Tribunal found that the appellant sustained injuries while attempting to board a moving train from the off side. His act, according to the Tribunal, was deliberate and he was clearly aware of the danger of his action. Therefore, Tribunal ruled that the appellant sustained selfinflicted injuries for which the Railway Administration is not liable to pay compensation.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant