JUDGMENT :

C. Saravanan, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.07.2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A. No. 12 of 2010.

2. By the impugned order, the Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed O.A. No. 12 of 2010 filed by the appellant.

3. The appellant had boarded train No. 2624 (Trivandrum Express) on 23.09.2008 from Trichur at about 20.00 hours under a wrong impression that the said train would stop at Jolarpet Railway Station on the following morning when it reaches the aforesaid station. The appellant held a valid train ticket for the aforesaid journey.

4. When the train was passing through Jolarpet Station at a slow speed, the appellant attempted to disembark from the moving train. The appellant thus fell and sustained grievous injuries on his right leg and right hip with multiple injuries all over his body. The right leg of the appellant was thereafter partially amputated due to the injury.

5. Under these circumstances, the appellant filed a claim petition on 18.11.2009 before the Railway Claims Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the Railways. The Respondent Railways contested the claim petition stating that the appellant had wrongly boarded the train and since it was not scheduled to stop at Jolarpet Station, the attempt of the appellant to disembark from a moving train was a "self-inflicted injury" and therefore did not amount to "untoward train accident" to fasten the liability on the Respondent Railways.

6. The Respondent Railways prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. Before the Railway Claims Tribunal, the Respondent Railways had failed to file the original mandatory investigation report along with the counter. It was however later filed. In the mandatory DRM/MAS report dated 22.03.2010 filed on 09.04.2010, the Respondent Railways classified the incident as "fallen down and injured." In the said report, it is also admitted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger holding a valid train ticket.

7. Question before the Tribunal was whether the Respondent Railway was liable to compensate to the appellant under Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act, 1989 and whether the appellant was entitled to interest and other relief, if any. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the application with the following observations:-

5.4 The applicant was examined as AW-1 and he has come out with different versions in his proof affidavit and in the cross-examination. While in the affidavit he has deposed that on 24.09.2008 when the said train came near Jolarpettai Railway Station, he had suddenly fallen down from the running train, fell into the track and run over by the said train resulting in injuries, but however, in the cross-examination he has deposed that on the fateful day, train No. 2624 did stop at Jolarpet and in the process of alighting from the train, he has fallen and met with the incident. This sudden U-turn taken by the applicant/injured proves one fact that he is not coming with clean hands before the Tribunal. Further, an inference that the applicant/injured is trying to suppress the truth which is visible from the chain of circumstances put together (discussed later in para 5.6) seems inescapable.

5.5 To substantiate the plea taken in defence, the respondent had filed the report of the Divisional Railway Manager/Chennai Division as per Exh. R-1. In the findings column it is mentioned that when the train in question started running without stoppage at JTJ, he jumped out from the running train and sustained injuries. This document was admitted by the applicant, without any murmur, when it was exhibited implying thereby that the train in question was indeed a non-stop train at Jolarpettai and this fact was corroborated by the document filed on behalf or the applicant himself as per Exh. A-1 (GD extract) which also mentions the fact that it was a non-stopping train at JTJ.

5.6 Viewed against the above backdrop, it is made very clear that the train in question was a non