JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Tarun Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Balwant Singh has entered appearance on behalf of the claimant-respondent. 2. The Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur is aggrieved by an award given by Shri Subhash Chandra, Member (Judicial) dated 9.2.2010 of Rs. 4 lacs in Suit No. OA/11/312/2005 Patna at Railway Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench. 3. According to the claim filed by Smt. Bundiya Devi-the widow of the deceased and for her three sons, the deceased Firangi Prasad had purchased a ticket and boarded Train No. 244 Up on 7.5.2001 from Manjhagarh to Sasamusa. He accidentally fell down while getting down from the train, and suffered serious injuries and died in the Hospital. In the Station memo, it was admitted that the deceased had purchased the ticket and was bona fide passenger. 4. From the statement given by the co-passenger, and the station diary, which is admissible in evidence under Section 191 of the Railways Act, 1989 it was alleged before the Tribunal that the deceased died while disembarking from the running train. On issue No. 1, the Tribunal held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and on issue Nos. 2 and 3, it was found that the burden of proof, that the deceased was disembarking from the running train and thus the death would not fall in any exceptions under proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (in short, ‘the Act), was on the railways. The names of the co-passenger were not written in the Station diary and thus the stand taken by the Railways, that the deceased was disembarking from the running train, was not proved on record. 5. Shri Tarun Varma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that under sub-section (2) of Section 123 of the Act, the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers excludes those cases of death or injuries in which the passengers take risk of disembarking from the running train. 6. Section 124-A provides that when in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of railway administration, a passenger who is injured or the dependent of the passenger, who is killed, is entitled for compensation. 6. Section 124-A provides that when in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of railway administration, a passenger who is injured or the dependent of the passenger, who is killed, is entitled for compensation. It is like a no fault statutory tortious liability, with the only exceptions in the proviso to Section 124-A. 7. The exceptions in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act have been codified and include suicide or attempted suicide by him; self-inflicted injury; his own criminal act; any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; and any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. The negligence sought to be attributed to the deceased is not included in the exemptions. 8. In the present case, even if it is accepted that the deceased was disembarking from the running train, the act would not come in any of the exception given in Section 124-A of the Act. 9. From the facts proved before the Tribunal, the death took place on account of accidental falling of the deceased a bona fide passenger from the train. The circumstance, in which the deceased had fallen and whether such circumstances would relate in any of the exception, was for the Railways to prove. The Railways has failed to discharge the burden. 10. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. There is no dispute with regard to quantum of the amount as the person had died and that in such case in the Schedule with reference to Rule 3 of Railways Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the amount is fixed at Rs. 4 lacs. 11. The First Appeal From Order is dismissed. ————