The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to interpret beneficial provisions in a manner that furthers the policy of the Act and is more beneficial to the claimants, while also considering the absence of mens rea in determining 'self-inflicted injury'.

P. Somarajan, J.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of an application under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming compensation for the accidental death of the son of the applicants, the applicants came up with this Memorandum of First Appeal. Apart from the question of appreciation of the facts and evidence involved in the case, the following legal questions also came up for consideration:

(1) Whether it is permissible to interpret a beneficial provision harmoniously so as to dis-entitle the benefit thereunder?

(2) What would be the principle of interpretation that can be applied in a beneficial legislation once it was found to be having two interpretations?

(3) What would be the meaning and effect of the expression "self inflicted injury" envisaged under the exceptions to the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act?

(4) Whether the incident involved would come under the exception to the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act?

2. The case advanced in short is that on 23-1-2012, while attempting to enter into a moving train, the son of the appellants fell down from the train, resulting in serious injuries. The injured, though removed to the nearby hospital, succumbed to the injuries on the same day, resulting in an application under Section 124A of the Railways Act (for short The Act'). On consideration of the evidence and after hearing both the parties, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Emakulam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dismissed the application, mainly on the reason that the injuries suffered by the victim are self inflicted injuries and, as such, the legal heirs/dependents of the victim are not entitled to grant of compensation, which is under challenge in this appeal.

3. The Tribunal mainly relied on the oral evidence tendered by R.W. 1, Station Superintendent of Tiruvalla Railway Station, wherein the accident occurred, and found that the alleged incident and cause of injury would come under the purview of the expression "self inflicted injury" as incorporated in one of the exceptions, clause (b) of the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act and took reliance from a Division Bench decision of this Court in Joseph, P. T. @ Thomas Jacob v. Union of India, 2013 (4) K.H.C. 297, wherein it was found, in an identical case, that injuries sustained by a passenger while boarding the train through off side unmindful of consequences, totally imprudent, irrational with full knowledge of imminent possibility of dangering his life or limb amounts to "self inflicted injury" and not an "untoward incident".

4. No independent witness was examined and no other sufficient evidence was adduced to show that the accident was happened in the manner as alleged by the Railway, except the interested testimony of one of the staff of the Railways as R.W. 1. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that normally the Superintendent of the Station has to do his work in the office and there is a chamber for him in the office as that of the Superintendent of Railways. It is too hard to digest that a person who was sitting inside the chamber in the railway station had seen the alleged incident and had given instruction to the victim, while attempting to enter into the train. As discussed earlier, no independent witness was examined. The interested testimony of the Superintendent of the Railway Station was accepted by the Tribunal without assessing whether it is possible for him to see the alleged incident and to instruct or give warning to the victim before the happening of the alleged incident. The person who is in charge of train or its guard was not examined and hence the factual finding of the Tribunal cannot be accepted.

5. Needless to say that Section 124A is based on strict liability (no fault liability) and the element of wrongful act, neglect or default shall not be taken into account while granting the compensation as per the Schedule annexed to Section 124A, limiting