The present Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.8.2013, passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, in Case No. O.A.(11U)/ RNC/ 2011/ 0053. After preliminary hearing of this Appeal, by order dated 21.4.2014, the lower court records were called for and thereafter the matter was listed for hearing.

The brief facts, giving rise to the present Appeal, are as under:-

1) Malay Saurav, son of the appellant was travelling by Hatia-Patna Super Express Train No.18627 from Bokaro Steel City to Gaya on 13.01.2011. The deceased fell down from running train in between Hazaribagh Road Station to Keshawari Halt at KM 346/7-9. The incident was a case of self-inflicted injury merely because the deceased had fallen from a running train suffered head injuries and died. After receiving such information the appellant reached at place of incident and identified the dead body of his son. The post mortem was conducted on the dead body of late Malay Saurav and the information was given before the authority concerned as U.D. Case No. 7/2011. The appellant has filed copies of fardbyan, FIR, Final Report, Inquest Report, Post mortem Report and Journey ticket No. 84095275 from Bokaro Steel City to Gaya. The appellant filed a petition for grant of compensation for Rs. 4 Laks u/s 124-A fo Railway Act r/w Rule 3 and 4 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (compensation) Rules, 1990.

2) Contesting the claim, the Respondent East Central Railway filed written statement against the claim application and contended that death of late Malay Saurav does not come within the purview of untoward incident as defined in the Indian Railway Act. The death did not occur due to fault of railway. The respondent also stated that the head injury indicates that deceased fell down due to his negligence. The co-pilot in train No. 18624 on 13.01.2011 from Bokaro Steel City to Gaya states/d that during his duty he did not find any jerk or abnormality nor he got any information about any person accidentally falling from the said train causing death or injury.

3) On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 16.04.2012 by the Railway Claims Tribunal:-

(i) Whether the deceased Malay Saurav s/o Sri Parmanand Vimal was a bonafide passenger?

(ii) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to the deceased Malay Saurav s/o Sri Parmanand Vimal while travelling in Tr. No. 18624 Hatia-Patna Super Express on 13.01.2011 between Hazaribag Road Station and Keshawari Halt?

(iii) Whether the applicants entitled for the compensation as claimed and for/ other relief, if any?

4) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the said accident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased. The Respondent Railway authority has not produced any single witness in support of their statement. It is further submitted that since the plea was raised by the respondent Railway authority that the deceased passenger died due to his own negligence, burden lies on railway authority to prove the same but it has failed to establish or prove such contention. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in holding that self inflicted injury of the deceased passenger cannot be covered under the definition of untoward incident, though no evidence was brought on record by the respondent to establish the negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has completely erred in holding that the accident was a case of self inflicted injury merely because the deceased had fallen from the running train, suffered head injuries and died. Learned counsel for the appellant in this context has referred to Section 123 (c)(2) of The Railways Act,1989 and submitted that in view of the above referred pr