Union of India vs V. lakshmana Rao and Others

S. Manikumar, J.—Aggrieved by the award made in O.A. No. 107 of 2002 dated 3.7.2008, the South-Central Railways, by its General Manager, Secunderabad, has preferred this appeal. Facts leading to the appeal are as follows:

On 19.6.2000, V. Kasturi Bai, with a view to go to Gudur by Krishna Express, purchased a II Class ticket from Viyayawada to Gudur, bearing No. 33908682 and boarded Howrah-Tiruchirappalli Express (train No. 6803) in general coach, either presuming it to be Krishna Express or due to the wrong guidance of some passengers on Vijayawada platform, as she being an illiterate person and as both the trains start from Vijayawada at the same time towards Gudur, It is the further contention of the claimants that when the train was entering Gudur Railway Station, the deceased, V. Kasturi Bai accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train between the platform and the train and she was cut into two pieces and killed instantaneously. The husband of the deceased initially made a claim for Rs. 4,00,000. After his examination as AW 1, the daughter and son of the deceased got themselves impleaded in the original application, as per the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal in M.A. No. 4 of 2008, dated 10.3.2008 as applicant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.

The appellant-Railways in their reply statement, dated 30.8.2001, denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No. 6803, travelling from Viyayawada to Gudur on ticket bearing No. 33908682, purchased for travel by Krishna Express and further contended that it was the deceased who attempted to alight from train No. 6803 at Gudur, for which there was no stop. The Railways further denied that the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Gudur Railway Station and that the act of the deceased attracts exemptions (b) or (c) listed in section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and for the above said reasons, prayed for dismissal of the original application.

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai, has observed that investigation report, along with the acceptance of the Divisional Railway Manager, required to be filed along with the written statement as per Rules framed pursuant to section 129 of the Railways Act, 1989, does not arise in this case, as the rules were brought into force much later in August 2003. On the pleadings and evidence, Railway Claims Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:

(1) Whether the applicant is the dependant of the deceased V. Kasturi Bai?

(2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No. 6803 Howrah-Tiruchirappalli Express travelling from Viyayawada to Gudur on ticket bearing No. 33908682 purchased for travelling by Krishna Express?

(3) Whether the deceased died as a result of untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Gudur Railway Station?

(4) To what relief?

Answering the issue in favour of the applicants, the Railway Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation and apportioned the same as follows:

Husband of the deceased Rs.

2,00,000

Daughter of the deceased Rs.

1,00,000

Son of the deceased Rs.

1,00,000

Referring to sections 66 and 68 of the Railways Act, 1890 and relying on a Division Bench judgment of Patna High Court in Ramchandra Prasad Sinha v. Union of India, AIR 1959 Patna 316, the learned counsel for the Railways submitted that deceased was not a bona fide passenger to travel in train bearing No. 6803, Howrah-Tiruchirappalli Express. She had purchased a ticket to travel from Viyayawada to Gudur by Krishna Express. When the said fact has been admitted by claimants and when Krishna Express has no scheduled stop at Gudur, the victim, who wrongly boarded Howrah-Tiruchirappalli Express, was not a bona fide passenger and since she had no valid authority to travel in Howrah-Tiruchirappalli Express, she had voluntarily jumped out at Gudur and having regard to the fact that the deceased''s residence was at Gudur Mandal, the Railway Claims Tribunal, on the circumstantial evidence and probabilities of the case, ought to have held that there is no cause of action for the claim and dismissed the claim petition.

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that when the victim herself jumped out of the train and sustained self-inflicted injuries, does the cause for the claim fall within the exemptions (b) or (c) listed in section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989? According to him, the act of entrainee and detrainee from the running train is punishable under law. Besides, travelling without proper authority, either expressly or impliedly, in Howrah-Tiruchirappalli Express, with a ticket to travel from Vijayawada to Gudur, is unauthorised. In these circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that she accidentally fell down from the train, is erroneous.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused materials available on record.

The main contention of the appellant Railways is that the incident was caused by the criminal act of the deceased and no compensation is payable by the railway administration, if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to his own criminal activity. The other contention is that she was not a bona fide passenger. In this context, it is relevant to extract few statutory provisions of the Railways Act and the rules made thereunder.

The term ''passenger'' has not been defined in the Act, its meaning, therefore, has to be found out from the interpretation of various sections of the Act dealing with the question of travelling by a passenger. Section 66 (1) lays down that every person desirous of travelling on a railway shall, upon payment of his fare, be supplied with a ticket, specifying the class of carriage for which and the place from and the place to which, the fare has been paid, and the amount of the fare. Sub-section (1) of section 68 states that no person shall, without the permission of a railway servant, enter or remain in any carriage on a railway for the purpose of travelling therein as a passenger unless he has with him a proper pass or ticket. Sub-section (2) of the above section lays down that a railway servant when granting the permission referred to in subsection (1) shall ordinarily, if empowered in this behalf by the railway administration, grant to the passenger a certificate that the passenger has been permitted to travel in such carriage upon condition that he subsequently pays the fare payable for the distance to be travelled.

Section 82-A of the Railways Act, 1890 reads as follows:

82-A (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 passenger dying as direct result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods owned by the passenger and accompanying the passenger in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a direct result of such accident.

(2) The liability of a railway administration under this section shall in no case exceed seven thousand rupees in respect of any one person and a railway administration shall not incur any liability under this section in respect of any person being a passenger on a train if such person is travelling without having with him a proper pass or ticket.

Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act defines the words ''untoward incident'' and it reads as follows:

(c) ''untoward incident'' means--

(1) (i) The commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or

(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak-room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

Section 124A of the Act deals with compensation on account of untoward incidents and it reads as follows:

When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, 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 passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to--

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

(b) self-inflicted injury;

(c) his own criminal act;

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, ''passenger'' includes--

(i) a railway servant on duty; and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

Section 6 deals with travelling on roof, step or engine of a train and it is extracted hereunder:

If any passenger or any other person, after being warned by a railway servant to desist, persists in travelling on the roof, step or footboard of any carriage or on an engine, or in any other part of a train not intended for the use of passengers, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both and may be removed from the railway by any railway servant.

As regards the contention that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger, it has been admitted by the appellant during arguments that there was an accidental fall from the train, but the dispute raised before the Tribunal was that when the deceased was having a ticket for travel by Krishna Express and when she boarded the train No. 6803 Howarh-Tiruchirappalli Express, which does not have a stop at Gudur, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of that train. Upon perusal of Exh. A2, dated 19.6.2000--copy of the ticket, Tribunal has observed that a second class ticket has been issued for a super fast train with no train number/name mentioned therein and, therefore, it was valid on the day in question for travel by any of super fast trains. The Tribunal has further observed that with that ticket, a person can normally travel by other express trains, as well as other trains which go via the intended destination station. In this context, the Tribunal has relied upon a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Vidya Kumari and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), South Central Railway, wherein the court held that a passenger who had a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers and when section 124A does not clarify that the passenger must possess a valid ticket for the same train from which he had an accidental fall, the passenger has to be treated as a bona fide passenger. The court further held that if a passenger has purchased a valid ticket for travelling in a train carrying passengers and even a person who possesses a valid platform ticket is covered by the definition of bona fide passenger and when he becomes a victim of an untoward incident, then he is entitled for compensation. Therefore, as per the above judgment, a person who possesses a platform ticket is also entitled for compensation and possession of a valid ticket for a particular train is immaterial.

In Ramchandra Prasad Sinha Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, a Division Bench of Patna High Court dealt with a case relating to a claim for compensation. It was the case of the claimants therein, that one Sudhangshu Sekhar Prasad Sinha, a Sub-Inspector of Excise posted at Raxaul and employed in the services of the State of Bihar, and his wife Urmila Devi had started by the afternoon steamer from Mahendru Ghat on 1.1.1954. When the train in which they were travelling was approaching Raxaul Railway Station, there was a collision between that train and a goods train at 5.30 a.m. on 2.1.1954, near the outer signal of Raxaul Station. As a result of that accident, two persons were found lying dead in the railway compartment. They left behind six minor children. Ramchandra Prasad Sinha, grandfather, filed a claim petition on their behalf u/s 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, in respect of the death of the parents. The Claims Commissioner found that the above two persons were travelling without ticket. He, therefore, held that they were trespassers and not passengers travelling in the train and, therefore, the children were not entitled to make any claim u/s 82-A of the Act. The claim petitions were dismissed. The finding recorded by the Claims Commissioner that Sudhangshu Sekhar Prasad Sinha and his wife were travelling in the train without having any ticket, was not challenged before the High Court. However, it was contended by the grandfather-appellant that even if the deceased had not purchased any ticket, the claimants would still be entitled to make a claim, because the death of the above said two persons was due to an accident. The Division Bench held that a person who enters upon a railway carriage without a proper pass, ticket or permission is liable to be removed or punished and, therefore, ''passengers'' dying as a result of an accident within the meaning of section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, therefore held that the expression ''bona fide passenger'' relates to a person who had been travelling in that train by obtaining a proper pass, ticket or permission not as a trespasser.

In yet another decision in Sundari v. Union of India, 1984 ACJ 614 (All), the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court considered a case where, for the death of one Suraj Prakash, his mother Sundari and others claimed compensation. He was travelling with his father Chet Ram by Janata Express from Haridwar to Bareilly. When this train collided with a stationary goods train at Katghar near Moradabad, both father and son died in the accident on the spot. The claimants submitted that both the persons were travelling on a railway pass issued to Chet Ram as railway servants. The claim was contested by Union of India on the grounds inter alia that the claimants are not entitled to get compensation and Suraj Prakash was not a bona fide passenger. The Claims Commissioner upheld the contention of the Union of India and held that Chet Ram had by misrepresentation obtained a pass for Suraj Prakash, his son, the deceased and, therefore, the latter was not a bona fide passenger at the time of accident. The claim petition was rejected and as against the same, an appeal was preferred to the High Court. After considering the definition of the word ''passenger'' under the Railways Act, the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court held as follows:

On a consideration of the legislative history and the provisions of section 82-A, our view is that only the dependants of a bona fide passenger are entitled to get compensation in the event of the death occurring in an accident. Section 82-A does not entitle the dependants of a trespasser to get benefit of the same. A trespasser does not occupy the status of a passenger. It is true that the Railways have a duty not to injure the trespassers wantonly or wilfully but that does not entitle the heirs to get compensation u/s 82-A.

However, in a decision in K. Vidya Kumari and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), South Central Railway, Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that section 124A does not clarify that the passenger must possess a valid ticket for the same train from which he had an accidental fall. The court further held that a passenger who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers and even a person who possesses a valid platform ticket is covered by this definition and when he becomes a victim of an untoward incident, he is entitled for compensation. As per the judgment, a person who possesses a platform ticket is also entitled for compensation and possession of a valid ticket for a particular train is immaterial.

In the case on hand upon perusal of the exhibits, Claims Tribunal has observed that as per Exh. A2, train ticket found in possession of the deceased, she was travelling from Vijayawada to Gudur by train No. 6803, accidentally slipped and fell from the running train in between the platform and the moving train and cut into two pieces due to run over of the train and died. Deceased had a second class ticket issued for a super fast train with no train number/ name mentioned thereon and, therefore, it was held to be valid on the day in question for travel by any of the super fast trains. As rightly observed by the Claims Tribunal that with that ticket a person can travel by any train which goes via the intended destination station. In the light of the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court cited supra, the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger cannot be held to be manifestly illegal.

In Sundari v. Union of India (supra), for the deceased Suraj Prakash, his father Chet Ram, a railway servant, had obtained a pass by misrepresentation. In the latter case relied on by the appellant-Railways, Allahabad High Court disentitled the claim on the ground that for being a passenger within the meaning of the Act, he must be a person travelling in the train with a ticket, pass or permission with the railway authority and section 82-A does not entitle the dependants of a trespasser to get the benefit under the Act. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the latter decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would not lend full support to the facts of the case on hand.

As per the report filed by claimants, the deceased had an accidental fall, whereas the appellant-Railways have contended that the deceased tried to get down from a moving train which had no scheduled stop at Gudur and, therefore, she invited self-inflicted injury and in such circumstances, claimants are not entitled to compensation. While addressing the above said issue, the Tribunal has considered two aspects:

(i) Whether attempting to get down from a moving train at a non-scheduled stopping station can be covered as an accidental fall within the ambit and scope of section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989? and

(ii) Whether the action of the deceased would amount to inviting self-inflicted injury?

In this context, Claims Tribunal had placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Union of India (UOI), South Central Railways Vs. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah and Others, where the Full Bench held that accidental falling would include a passenger trying to alight from a train, board a train or any other like action. The Claims Tribunal also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, where the Supreme Court after considering various judgments held that the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" includes accidents where a bona fide passenger, i.e., passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. Short facts of the reported case are as follows:

A claim was made by the husband, mother and minor son of one Abja, who died on 23.5.1996 in a train accident at Varkala Railway Station. Claims Tribunal disallowed the claim, but the appeal filed by claimants against the said decision was allowed by Kerala High Court and a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of the payment was granted. Testing the correctness of the same, the Union of India preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. There was no dispute that Abja was a bona fide passenger holding a second class season ticket and an identity card was also issued by the Southern Railway. As per the Forensic Report the cause of death was due to injuries, the deceased fell on the railway track and run over by a train, Parasuram Express. Before the Tribunal, PW 2 has deposed that while he was working at Varkala Railway Station, he found one passenger falling from Parasuram Express and that the train had stopped. He has further deposed that the deceased fell down from the compartment of the train when the train was moving. The Tribunal disbelieved his evidence having regard to the evidence of DW 1, the stationmaster of the railway station who has deposed that he saw one girl running towards the train and trying to enter the train and that she fell down. The Tribunal held that this was not an ''untoward incident'' within the meaning of the expression in section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989, as it was not an accidental fall of a passenger from a train carrying passengers.

When the said finding was challenged before Kerala High Court having regard to the case of the respondents that the deceased in her anxiety to get into the moving train, fell down held that deceased came within the expression of "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" which is an ''untoward incident'', as defined in section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989. On this aspect, the Supreme Court in the above reported case, at paras 10 and 11 held as follows:

(10) We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an ''accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers''. Hence, it is an untoward incident as defined in section 123 (c) of the Railways Act.

(11) No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression ''accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passenger'', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion, the latter of the above-mentioned two interpretations, i.e., the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India (S.C.C. para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd. (S.C.C. para 12), and Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn....

Again at para 14, the Apex Court held as follows:

(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 the 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 propulsive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression.

22 On the facts of the reported case, the Supreme Court found that the accident in which Abja died was clearly not covered by the proviso to section 124A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to section 124A. Hence, in the opinion of their Lordships, the case was covered by the main body of section 124A of the Railways Act, and not its proviso. On the aspect as to whether section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability, the Apex Court has made it clear that "Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in the case or railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of section 124A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault".

On comparative study of the liability under various enactments, (i) section 3 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, which provides for compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, and this compensation is not for negligence on the part of the employer, but is a sort of insurance to workmen against certain risks of accidents, (ii) sections 140 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, etc., and (iii) section 124A of the Railways Act, and other statutes, the Apex Court held that, "we can and should develop the law of strict liability de hors statutory provisions in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this court in M.C. Mehta and another Vs. Union of India and others,

In T.V. Kunjali v. Union of India, 2009 ACJ 482 (Madras), this court has considered a case, where due to the sudden start of the train with a jerk, a passenger, who was standing near the entrance of the compartment, fell down between the train and the platform and sustained grievous injuries. He made a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, and the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that due to the claimant''s rash and negligent act, he sustained injuries and as such the railway administration is not liable to pay any compensation for the injuries. Testing the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal on appeal, a learned Judge of this court after considering the provisions of section 124A of the Railways Act held that the case of the claimant would fall under the category of untoward incidents as defined u/s 123 of the said Act. After referring to the decisions made in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Khairunnisa Begum and Others, , Union of India (UOI), South Central Railways Vs. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah and Others, and Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India, , the learned Judge at para 9 held that since the case on hand does not cover the instance as provided in proviso to section 124A of the Act, the appellant even if it is taken that he was trying to board the running train and sustained injuries is entitled for compensation.

In yet another case in Union of India (UOI) Vs. S. Yadagiri @ Yadaiah and Another, Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a case where the deceased after boarding the train slipped and fell down accidentally and died on the spot. It was pleaded by the Railways that the deceased died on account of an untoward incident and in view of the matter they are not liable to pay the compensation. The Railways also submitted that the deceased died on account of his own negligence or lack of proper care and in that view of the matter the same needs to be treated as self-inflicted injury. Reliance was also placed on the Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Union of India (UOI), South Central Railways Vs. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah and Others, ). While dealing with the expression ''self-inflicted injury'' Andhra Pradesh High Court, at para 10, has held as follows:

(10) The expression ''self-inflicted injury'' is not described or defined under the Act. However, it is not difficult to understand its scope. The infliction of the injury should be by the person himself upon his body and out of his own volition. It presupposes the state of mind wherein the person accused of it had conceived an idea of inflicting an injury to himself. This in turn presupposes the person being in a state of mind to take an independent decision. When these aspects are established in relation to a person while travelling in a train, the Railways cannot be held responsible to pay the compensation.

Having regard to the expression of ''self-inflicted injury'' the court made it clear that the burden to prove that a passenger died or sustained injuries on account of self-inflicted injury squarely rests upon the Railways. At para 11, the court held as follows:

(11) The burden to prove that a passenger died or sustained injuries on account of a self-inflicted injury, squarely rests upon the Railways. It is not as if that as and when it is proved that a passenger has sustained injury, a simultaneous presumption that the injury is self-inflicted, has to be drawn. It is only when necessary ingredients are proved touching on the allegation of self-infliction that it can be treated so. In case of deaths, which result on account of self-inflicted injuries, the burden is still heavier. First, it needs to be established that the passenger in question had inflicted any injury upon himself, being conscious of the consequence thereof. Secondly, that the injury in turn had resulted in his death. These aspects are consciously absent in the present case. It was not even alleged by the appellant that the deceased has a premeditated plan to inflict an injury upon himself by slipping from the train and that the same has resulted in his death. Hence the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted.

In these circumstances, the court, at para 9, held that:

(9) The liability to pay compensation u/s 124A is almost absolute. Once it is proved that an accident resulting in death or injury to a passenger has taken place, the neglect or default on the part of the railway administration is immaterial and irrelevant. However, it is not every incident or death or injury that brings about the liability on the railway administration. As many as 5 exceptions are carved down in the proviso.

If the injury or death occurs due to any one of the exceptions, in that event alone, the Railways can extricate itself from the liability to pay compensation.

In the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, this court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that it would be unjustified to limit the compensation to cases of accidental fall while alighting a train, boarding a train or any other like action of bona fide passengers only at scheduled stops of trains and not to actions at non-stopping stations.

As stated supra, in the case on hand, the claimants have proved that deceased was a bona fide passenger and fell from the train. The next question to be considered is whether the respondents-claimants are entitled to claim compensation. Perusal of the judgment shows that they had produced Exh. A6, Family Members Certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudur, Vellore District to show their relationship with the deceased.

The claimants are none other than the husband and 2 children and, therefore, they are dependants of the deceased in terms of section 123 (b) (i) of the Railways Act, 1989. In view of the above discussion, the contention of the Railways that the victim voluntarily jumped out of the train, resulting in death and, therefore, it would fall under the definition of ''self-inflicted injury'' u/s 124A of the Railways Act is rejected. There is no manifest illegality in the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai, warranting interference. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.