J. S. VERMA, J. :- This is an appeal under Section 82-F (2) of the Indian Railways Act against dismissal of a claim made in accordance with Section . 82-C for award of compensation under Section 82-A of the Act.

2. The appellant Sunil Kumar Ghosh boarded 33 Down Indore-Bilaspur Express at Indore on 22-2-1976, in which he was travelling upto Katni on way to Satna, where he was employed as an Engineer. On the morning of 23-2-1976 at about 6.15 A. M., when the train was at Jabalpur railway station, the appellant was involved in an accident, as a result of which his right hand was badly crushed. He was rushed to the Victoria Hospital at Jabalpur for treatment. However, his right hand had to be amputated above the elbow. The appellant then preferred a claim for award of compensation under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act before the Claims Commissioner, Railways at Jabalpur (Distt. Judge, Jabalpur). That claim has been dismissed. Hence this appeal.

3. The only question involved, in this appeal is whether Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act applies to the present case. There is no dispute that in case Section 82-A is attracted, then the appellant is entitled to the award of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation, which is payable in respect of the personal injury sustained by him, namely, amputation of the right arm above the elbow in accordance with item No. (iii) in Part III of the schedule to the Railway Accidents Compensation Rules 1950 read with Rule 6 therein. The dispute, however, is about the applicability of Section 82-A of the Act.

4. The facts not in controversy may first be stated. The appellant was a bona fide passenger travelling in a through second Class Sleeper Coach in that train, from Indore and was to get down at Katni for going to Satna. The appellant was accompanied by his wife and their small child. Three bogies were attached to that train at Bhopal which were detached at Jabalpur. During the shunting operations at Jabalpur railway station for the purpose of detaching the three bogies, which were at the rear end of the train behind the bogie in which the appellant was travelling, the appellant some-how fell out of the train near the water column at the end of the platform and his right hand was crushed by that part of the train, which was being shunted. The facts so far are not in controversy. The controversy on facts really is about the bogie from which the appellant actually fell out and the circumstances of his fall.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the undisputed facts alone are sufficient to attract Section 82-A of the Railways Act. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the words "accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers" occurring in sub-sec.(1) of Section 82-A clearly indicate that the accident has to be to a train or part thereof and not merely to the passenger. He argued that in the present case, the appellant, as a passenger, may have been involved in an accident, but not so the train, because the appellant appears to have fallen out due to his own negligence and there was no impact to the train itself.

6. Section 82-A reads as under :

"82-A. Liability of Railway Administration in respect of accidents to trains carrying passengers.

(1) When in the course of working a railway an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then, whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a person who has been injured or has suffered loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, be liable to pay compensation to the extent set out in sub-section (2) and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a pa