JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Neeta Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Railways.

2. The present appeal has been directed against the order dated 20.08.2013 passed by Member/Technical, Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, in Case No.OA(II-u)/RNC/2010/0135 (Old No.OU- 70083/07) whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the compensation case filed by the appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 09.08.2007 after purchasing and having valid second class train ticket for Jasidih to Gaya, Mau Bind @ Mau Devi boarded Train No.805 Up Rampur Halt- Gaya Passenger at Kiul station after reaching Kiul from Jasidih by another train for going to Gaya. As the train was approaching Gaya passengers started reaching near the gate of the compartment and the deceased was also standing at the gate to get down at the Gaya station. While the said train was running between Manpur and Gaya (Km 464/23 and 464/21) the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train on account of heavy rush and intense jostling of the passengers which resulted in her death. On this background, the appellant who happened to be husband of the deceased, approached the learned Railway Tribunal for compensation in terms of Railways Act, 1908. She submits that by the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2013, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the claim on the ground that there was no witness to the incident and has further held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. She submits that the judgment is not in accordance with law and sections of Indian Railways Act, particularly, section 123(C) and section 124(A) have not been interpreted in its right perspective. She submits that the co-passenger has filed the affidavit to the effect that she(deceased) was travelling along with them in the train. She further submits that final form has been submitted which is on the record as Exhibit-A/7 in which it has been disclosed that the death occurred due to cut of the body into two pieces by the train. She further submits that since in light of the judgment rendered in the case of “Union of India v. Rina Devi” reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572, particularly, paragraph no.25, the case of the appellant is fully covered and in that view of the matter, the judgment passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal is not correct. For ready reference, paragraph no.25 of “Union of India v. Rina Devi”(supra) is quoted hereinbelow:

25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of “self-inflicted injury” would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on “no fault theory”. We may in this connection refer to the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, (2019) 12 SCC 398 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1443 : (2017) 13 Scale 652] laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on “no fault theory” under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or deboarding a train will be an “untoward incident” entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.

4. She further submits that the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM)‘s report, in light of Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untowards Incident) Rules, 2003, in view of Rule 13 of the said Rules, which is a statutory provision, has not been produced.

5. Per contra, Mrs. Neeta Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Railways submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that there was no