JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A.No.8 of 2022. The claim submitted by the applicant for compensation for the injury suffered by him has been rejected by the Tribunal, stating that the applicant has committed a criminal act against his own body without considering his age and physical status despite the fact that he was a daily commuter of the train.

2. According to the appellant, he had boarded to the train after purchasing a ticket No.69529561 from Thrissur to Angamaly Station in order to go to Kalady. The train in which the appellant wrongly boarded (Porbandar-Kochuveli Express) did not have a stop at Angamaly or at Aluva. According to him, he had fallen down from the moving train due to a sudden jerk and jolts of the train at Aluva Railway Station and was taken to the hospital by the on-duty staff of the Station. For the injury suffered, he had made the claim before the Tribunal.

3. The Railways had filed a reply wherein, it is admitted that the petitioner was travelling in the train. It is stated that he had boarded the wrong train from Thrissur. It is further stated that he was standing near the doorway in order to get down at Aluva and since the train did not stop, he jumped out of the train. It is further stated that he had compromised with his own personal safety and even committed an offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act.

4. The appellant had tendered evidence and examined himself as AW-1. He was also cross-examined. Documents A1 to A12 were marked in support of the claim in the application. He had also examined his employer to prove his income and Ext.A12 is the affidavit filed by the employer. On the side of the Railways only the DRM report was marked. It also included the extract of the Register kept by the Station Master, who received the first information report relating to the incident. The Tribunal found that the appellant had purchased a ticket for his journey from Thrissur to Angamaly and held that he was a bonafide purchaser. The Tribunal however found fault with the appellant for standing near the door of the compartment and drew a presumption that it was with the intention to jump from the moving train. The Tribunal also found that it was not possible for the appellant to board the wrong train since he was a regular commuter. Based on the said presumption, the Tribunal also held that the appellant had approached the Tribunal suppressing true and correct facts and creating his own story in order to stake a claim with the Railways. Reliance is placed on the Station Master’s register to say that the claimant jumped out of the train and got injured. No oral evidence has been let in by the respondents to support the contents of the register. So also statements of two constables of the Kerala Police have been relied on without affording any opportunity for the appellant to cross-examine them. Over and above, the Tribunal also found that no compensation is payable in view of Section 124A of the Railways Act.

5. I have heard the counsel on either side. The counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of a Division Bench in Varkey v. Union of India [2011(1) KLT 204], wherein this Court held that in order to attract Section 124A, there must have been an element of malicious intent or mens rea. It was further held that standing at the open door and travelling in another coach in the same train and not in a particular seat of the reserved coach cannot be termed as criminal acts so as to absolve the Railways from liability to pay compensation. I find that the case in hand is similar to the one involved in Varkey’s case (Supra). This is also a case where the Tribunal has found the appellant to be a bonafide traveller. Merely for the fact that he was standing at the door will not lead to an inference that he was attempting to jump or he jumped. There is no independent evidence to show that the appellant had actually jumped.

In the above circumstances, the ap