The court ruled that insufficient evidence exists to classify the accident as self-inflicted, affirming the right to full compensation for injuries sustained.

CMA No. 1663 of 2023 For Appellant(s): T.C.Sajith Babu For Respondent(s): C.Samivel JUDGEMENT This Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed in RES. 1/2020 in IA. 17/2012 dated 23.07.2021 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

2. The brief facts of the case:

On 17.07.2007, the injured was travelling from Trichy to Kumbakonam and he boarded Trichy – Tiruvarur passenger train and had to change train from Thanjavur. While travelling in the said train near the door, the door suddenly closed in a jerk and knocked him out of the train near Bhudalur, making him unconscious and severely injured in the head, left elbow and left knee. He was in coma for almost 35 days and could not speak for almost a year. Hence, he filed the application under Section 16 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 r/w Section 123(c)(2), 124_A & 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming Rs.4,00,000/-.

3. The Railway filed reply statement and DRM's report and On the side of the claimant filed GRP, RPF Mitra Yojana ID Card, Discharge summary, wound certificate, disability certificate, concession certificate, concession/benefits passbook, ration/family card, Elecion ID Card and Aadhar Card.

4. According to the applicant he purchased a ticket which was kept in his pocket. But as per the report of the Railway Protection Force he is not a bonafide passenger and no such ticket has been kept in the pocket. On hearing both sides, the tribunal held that, on the date of the accident injured travelled in the train and also injured was unconscious and all the possibility of ticket might have lost during his course of the treatment and come to the conclusion that applicant is bonafide passenger of train. Further, as per the evidence collected by the Railway Protection Force on the date of the accident there was no crowd in the coach and also contended that applicant travelled on the foot board of the running train, due to which he fell down from the running train which result to severe head injury and based on that the tribunal concluded that victim is a bonafide passenger and also it held that said injury is not self inflicted with an any intention to die and relied ratio laid down in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi ini Civil Appeal No. 4945 of 2018. Further, held that respondent itself admitted that injury was caused when he travelled in the train on the date of the accident. Thereby, the tribunal concluded that the applicant is a bonafide purchaser and got injured in untoward incident as defined under Section 123 C (2 ) by Railway Act, 1989 and also concluded that injury sustained is fall under the category of non schedule injuries. Therefore, by relying the Rule 3 Clause 3 of Compensation Rule tribunal awarded only Rs.80,000/- and enhanced as per the Amendment Rule, 2016 in respect of non-scheduled injury in Railway untoward incident to Rs.1,60,000/-. challenging the said award applicant preferred the appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned judge had concluded that applicant got injured in untoward incident but instead of granting the full compensation the learned judge erred in giving relief under Rule 3(3) of the Compensation Rules thus the order suffers from non application of mind, thus the same ought to be set aside. Further the learned judge ought to have seen that once the applicant fulfill the conditions laid down under the Rule the applicant is entitled for the claims. The learned judge ought not to have rejected the claim of the applicant. Further, the case in hand also genuine thereby applicant is entitled for compensation as per the Rule. But the learned