The main legal point established is the interpretation of 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' and the concept of 'self-inflicted injury' under Section 124-A of the Railway Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants Rekha Devi, W/o the deceased Ajay Thakur, Priti Kumari, minor daughter of the deceased Ajay Thakur, Bittu Kumar, minor son of the deceased Ajay Thakur and Anjani Kumari, minor daughter of the deceased Ajay Thakur all resident of Village/Mohalla-Madhopur, PO-Madhopur, PS-Satgawa, District-Koderma (Jharkhand) have preferred this appeal against the dismissal of their Claim Case No.OA (iiu)/RNC/2007/0062, OLD No. OU-70062/07, passed by learned Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi vide Judgment dated 08.12.2014, whereby the claim application of the applicants has been rejected on the ground that applicants are not entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railway Act.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha has submitted, that the learned Railway Claims Tribunal has completely failed to consider the fact brought on record and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, & Ors. reported in 2008(9) SCC 527 and Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha has further submitted, that fact of the case is very relevant. Ajay Thakur husband and father of the appellants, aged about 32 years, holding 2nd class ticket ex-Koderma to Dhanbad had boarded Train No.302 DN at Koderma station on 08.05.2007. He was pushed to the other side due to rush in the compartment and fell down from the train from another gate. He was run over by Goods train coming in the UP line and died in course of treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha has further submitted, that to that effect the applicants/appellants have filed claim application and examined the Applicant, Rekha Devi herself as A.W.-1 and Manoj Kumar as A.W.-2 and there is an evidence from the applicants that deceased had purchased ticket for going to Dhanbad by Train No.302 DN and also boarded the train with lot of difficulty as there was heavy rush in the compartment. There is evidence that Ajay Thakur has fell down from opposite door and was run over by Goods train but learned Railway Claims Tribunal has wrongly considered the evidence of witnesses and passed order contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. reported in 2008(9) SCC 527. Paras 14 to 17 and 22 to 24 of the judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

“14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.

15. Section 2(29) of the Railways Act defines “passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident” to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A of the Railways Act with which we are concerned states:

“124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.—When in the course of working a railway an untow