Judgment : Aggrieved by award made in O.A. No. 107 of 2002, dated 7. 2008, the South-Central Railways, by its General Manager, Secundrabad, has preferred this appeal. 2. Facts leading to the appeal are as follows: On 16. 2000, Smt. V. Kasturi Bai, with a view to go to Gudur by Krishna Express, purchased a General II class ticket from Vijayawada to Gudur, bearing train No. 33908682 and boarded train No. 6803 Howrah-Tiruchirappalli Express in general coach, either presuming it to be Krishna Express or due to 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. Husband of the deceased initially made a claim for Rs.4,00,000/-. After his examination as A.W. 1, daughter and son of the deceased got themselves impleaded in the Original Application, as per the order of the Tribunal in M.A. no. 4 of 2008, dated 3. 2008 as applicants 2 and 3 respectively. 3. The appellant-Railways in their reply statement, dated 30.8.2001, denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No. 6803, traveling from Vijayawada 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 124-A pf the Railways Act, 1989 and for the above said reasons, prayed for dismissal of the Original Application. 4. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Branch, has observed that the 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, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration. 1. Where the applicant is the dependent of the deceased V. Kasturi Bai? 2. Whether deceased was a bona fide passenger of train No. 6803 Howrah – Tiruchirappalli Express traveling from Vijayawada to Gudur on ticket bearing No. 33908682 purchased for traveling 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? 5. Answering the issue in favour of the applicants, the Railway Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of R.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/- 6. Referring to Section 66 and 68 of the Railways Act, 1890 and relying on a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Ramachandra Prasad Sinha v. Union of India AIR 1959 Pat. 316 , Mr. T.S. Rajmohan, learned counsel for the Railways submitted that the 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 Vijayawada to Gudur by Krishna Express. When the said fact has been admitted by the 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. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the victim herself jumped out of the train and sustained self-inflicted injuries, is the cause for the claim falls within the exemptions (b) or (c) listed in Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Accordingly to him, the act of entrainee and detrainee from the running train, is punishable under law. Besides, traveling without proper authority, either expressly or impliedly, in Howrah-Tiruchirappalli Express, with a ticket to travel from Vijayawada to Gudur, is unauthorised. Accordingly to him, the act of entrainee and detrainee from the running train, is punishable under law. Besides, traveling 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 bona fide passenger and that she accidentally, fell down from the train, is erroneous. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The main contention of the appellant Railway is that the incident was caused by the criminal act of the deceased and no compensation is payable by 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. 9. 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 traveling by a passenger. Section 66(1) lays 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 traveling 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 sub-Section (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 traveled. 10. 10. 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 Subsection (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, occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as direct result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction or deterioraton 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 traveling without having with him a proper pass or ticket.” 11. Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act defines the word “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 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.” 12. Section 124-A 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 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, “passengers” includes--- (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. 13. Section 156 deals with Travelling on roof, step or engine of a train and it is extracted hereunder: “If any passenger nor any other person, after being warned by a railway servant to desist, persists in traveling 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 extent to three months, or with fine 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.” 14. As regards the contention is that the deceased 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 a train No. 6803 Howrah to Tiruchirappalli, which does not have stop at Gudur, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of that train. Upon perusal of Exhibit A-2, dated 16. 2000-copy of the ticket, the Tribunal has observed that a second class ticket has been issued for a superfast 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 train. 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 on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Vidyakumari v. Union of India, South-Central railways 2004 ACJ 1420 , wherein, the Court held that a passenger who had a valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers and when Section 124-A 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 traveling 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. 15. In Ramchandra Prasad Sinha v. Union of India (supra), a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dealt with a case relating to a claim 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. 15. In Ramchandra Prasad Sinha v. Union of India (supra), a Division Bench of the 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 started by the afternoon Steamer from Mahendru Ghat on 1. 1954. When the train in which they were traveling was approaching Raxaul Railway Station, there was a collision between that train and a goods train at 5.30 a.m. On 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, grand father filed a claim petition on their behalf under Section 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 traveling in the train, and therefore, the children were not entitled to made any claim under Section 82-A of the Act. The claim petitions were dismissed. The findings recorded by the Claims Commissioner that Sudhangshu Sekhar Prasad Sinha and his wife were traveling in the train without having any ticket, was not challenged in the High Court. However, it was contended by the grand father, appellant that even if the deceased had not purchased any ticket, the claimants would be still entitled to make a claim, because of 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 traveling in that train by obtaining a proper pass, ticket of permission not as a trespasser. 16. 16. In yet another decision in Smt. Sundri and Others v. Union of India and Another AIR 1984 All. 227, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court considered a case where, for the death of one Mr. Suraj Prakash, his mother Sundri and others claimed compensation. He was traveling with his father Chet Ram by Janta Express from Hardwar 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 traveling 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 Bank 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 the Allahabad High Court held as follows: “On a consideration of the legislative history and the provisions of Section 82A, our view is that only the dependants of a bona fide passenger are entitled to get compensation in the event of 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 willfully but that does not entitle the heirs to get compensation under Section 82-A.” 17. However, in a decision in K. Vidyakumari v. Union of India, south-Central Railway (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High court has held that Section 124-A does not clarify that the passenger must possess a valid ticket for the same train from which he had an accidental fall. However, in a decision in K. Vidyakumari v. Union of India, south-Central Railway (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High court has held that Section 124-A 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 traveling from a train carrying passenger 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 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. 18. In the case on hand upon perusal of the exhibits, the Claims Tribunal has observed that as per Exhibit A-2 Train Ticket found in possession of the deceased, she was traveling from Vijayawada to Guntur by train No.6803, accidentally slipped and fell from running train in between the platform on the moving train and cut into two pieces due to run over of the train and died. The 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 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 go via the intended destination station. In the light of the decision of the 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. 19. In Sundri and Others v. Union of India and Another (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 the 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 the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would not lend full support to the facts of the case on hand. 20. As per the report filed by the 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, invited self inflicted injury and in such circumstances, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. While addressing the abovesaid issue, the Claims 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. 21. In this context, the Claims Tribunal had placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Union of India, South Central Railways v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah 2004 ACJ 529 , where the Full Bench held that accidental falling would include a passenger trying to alight 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 v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others (2008) 4 MLJ 323 (SC), where the Supreme Court after considering various judgments held that the expression of “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” includes accidents when 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 Ms. Abja, who died on 25. 1996 in a train accident at Varkala Railway Station. The Claims Tribunal disallowed the claim, but the appeal filed by the claimants against the said decision was allowed by the Kerala High Court and a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of the payment was granted. The Claims Tribunal disallowed the claim, but the appeal filed by the claimants against the said decision was allowed by the Kerala High Court and a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% 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 Ms. Abja, was a bona fide passenger 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, P.W.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. He regard to the evidence of D.W.1, the station master 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.” 22. When the said finding was challenged before the Kerala High Court having regard to the case of the respondents that the deceased in down anxiety to get into the moving train, fell down held that the deceased came within the expression of “accidental falling of a passenger of 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 paragraph Nos. 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”. 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 passengers”, 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 abovementioned 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 (SCC para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd (SCC) para 12) and Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn.- Again at para No. 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 railwaytrains 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. 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 pas is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.” 23. On the facts of the reported case, the Supreme Court found that the accident in which Ms. Abja died was clearly not covered by the proviso to Section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of the proviso to Section 124-A. Hence in the opinion of Their Lordship, the case was covered by the main body of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and not its proviso. On the aspect as to whether Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability, the Supreme Court has made it clear that “Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in the case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.” 24. 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 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 etc., and (iii) Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and other statutes, the Supreme 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 v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 . 25. 25. In T.V. Kunjali v. Union of India, Owning Southern Railway represented by the General Manager (2007) 3 LW 345 , 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 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 124(A) of the Railways Act held that the case of the claimant would fall under the category of untoward incident as defined under Section 123 of the said Act. After referring to the decisions made in (2005) ACJ 286. Union of India, South Central Railways v. Kurukundu Blakrishnaiah (supra), 2004 ACJ 702 and 2001 ACJ 721, the learned Judge at paragraph No. 9 held that since the case on hand does not cover the instances as provided in proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, the appellant even if it is taken that he was trying to board the running tran and sustained injuries is entitled for compensation. 26. In yet another case in Union of India v. Yadagiri allies Yadaiah and Another II (2005) ACC 324, the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a case where the deceased after boarding the train slipped and fell down accidentally and died on spot. It was pleaded by the railways that the deceased died on account of an untoward accident and in view of the matter they are not liable to pay 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 the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Union of India South Central Railway Secundrabad v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah (supra). While dealing with the expression “self inflicted injury” the Andhra Pradesh High Court, at para 10, has held as follows: “10. Reliance was also placed on the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Union of India South Central Railway Secundrabad v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah (supra). While dealing with the expression “self inflicted injury” the 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 pre-supposes 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.” 27. 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. Act 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 s and when it is proved that a passenger has sustained injury, a simultaneous presumption that the injury is self-inflicted, has to be draw. 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 in needs to be established that the passenger in question had inflicted and injury upon himself, being conscious of the consequence thereof. Secondly, that the injury in turn had resulted in his death. These aspects are conspicuously absent in the present case. It was not even alleged by the appellant that the deceased has a pre-meditated 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.” 28. In these circumstances, the Court, at paragraph 9, held that, “9. It was not even alleged by the appellant that the deceased has a pre-meditated 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.” 28. In these circumstances, the Court, at paragraph 9, held that, “9. The liability to pay compensation under Section 124-A 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 of 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 exemptions, in that event alone, the railways can extricate itself from the liability to pay compensation. 29. 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 to 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. 30. As stated supra, in the case on hand, the claimants have proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and fell down from the train. The next question to be considered is whether the respondent/claimants are entitled to claim compensation. Perusal of the judgment shows that they had produced Exhibit A-6. Family Members Certificate issued by Mandala Revenue Office, 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 dependents of the deceased in terms of Section 123(b)(i) of the Railways Act 1989. 31. 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”, under Section 124-A of the Railways Act is rejected. There is no manifest illegality in the decision of the Railway Claim Tribunal, Chennai, warranting interference. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There is no manifest illegality in the decision of the Railway Claim Tribunal, Chennai, warranting interference. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.