JUDGMENT A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J : Appellants filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench; (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') being the wife and children of one M. Anand, who died on 07.02.2007, while travelling as a passenger in train No.283 from R. Nulenur to Davanagere. The claim petition having been contested by the respondent, was dismissed, being aggrieved by which, the applicants have filed this appeal. 2. In the claim application it was stated that, the deceased was travelling from R.N ulenur to Davanagere by train No.283 on a valid ticket and being thirsty, to quench his thirst, was alighting from the train to drink the water at Kodaganur Railway Station, where he accidentally fell down and died at the spot. It was stated that, the cause of accident is due to the Railway Officer and the platform, which is at lower level, which made it very difficult for the passenger to alight and board and hence being an untoward incident, which resulted in death, the compensation was claimed. 3. The respondent filed reply and contested the claim. It was stated therein that, the claim does not fall within the ambit ofS.123(c)(2) of the Act and it is the case of "Volenti not fit injuria" and hence no damage can be claimed. It was not a case of accidental fall from the train and on account ' of carelessness & negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred and hence, no compensation is payable by it. 4. Based on the pleadings, following issues were framed. 1. Is the applicant the sole legal heir of the deceased M. Anand? 2. Was the deceased M. Anand a bonafide passenger by Train No.283 travelling from R.Nulenur to Davangere on 07.02.2007? 3. Can the incident stated by the applicant in Para 6 be covered under Section 123(c)(2) of Indian Railway Act, 1989? 4. Is there any compensation payable to the applicant? If so what amount? 5. What relief? What costs? 5. Mother of the deceased, who was a co-passenger in the train deposed as AW-1. The PSI, Udupi Town, deposed as AW-2. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. For the respondents, RWs 1 & 2 deposed and Exs.R-1 & R2 were marked. 4. Is there any compensation payable to the applicant? If so what amount? 5. What relief? What costs? 5. Mother of the deceased, who was a co-passenger in the train deposed as AW-1. The PSI, Udupi Town, deposed as AW-2. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. For the respondents, RWs 1 & 2 deposed and Exs.R-1 & R2 were marked. Appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal has held that, the applicants are the legal heirs of deceased M.Anand, who was a bonafide passenger in the train No.283 travelling from R.Nulenur to Davanagere on 07.02.2007. However, while answering issue No.3, it has held that, the deceased has not fallen down from the train, but has committed suicide and the act was not an 'untoward incident'. As a result, the Railway Administration was not liable to pay the compensation. 6. Sri Manjunatha Pattanashetty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that, the Tribunal has committed an error and illegality in answering issue No.3 against the appellants. Learned Counsel contended that, there is non-consideration of material evidence by the Tribunal in the correct perspective and the findings of the tribunal on issue No.3 and the resultant finding on Issue No.4 & 5 are perverse and illegal. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Jameela & Others Vs. Union of India - AIR 2010 SC 3705 and Balagoni Siva Prasad Vs. Union of India - 2009 ACJ 1332 . 7. Sri N.S. Sanjay Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand contended that, there is correct appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal and in view of categorical statement of AW-2 and the inquest report, it is clear that there was no untoward incident and it is a case of suicide, in view of which, the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the application. Learned Counsel contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are not entitled to the relief prayed in their application and the appeal is untenable. 8. In view of the rival contentions and the record of the case, which I have perused, the point for consideration is: Whether the Tribunal has committed error in holding that it is a case of suicide and not an untoward incident? 9. There is no dispute that M.Anand was a passenger holding a valid ticket issued by the South Western Railway. 9. There is no dispute that M.Anand was a passenger holding a valid ticket issued by the South Western Railway. As per the P.M. Report, the cause of death is due to shock severe bleeding due to decapitation of head. The deceased fell on the railway track and was ran over by train No.283. 10. AW-1 is the mother of the deceased M.Anand she has deposed that, herself and her son Anand travelled in train No.283 from R.Nulenur to Davanagere on 07.02.2007, on a II Class ticket and while travelling in the train, the deceased was thirsty and to quench his thirst, was alighting from the train to drink the water at Kodaganur Railway Station, where he fell down and died at the spot. According to her, the wheel of the train moved on her son, who died at the spot. 11. Ex.A-1 is the FIR. Ex.A-2 is the inquest report and Ex.A-3 is the P.M.Report. In the cross-examination, A W-l has stated that, they were to alight at Davangere and the incident occurred at Kodaganoor, where the train was stopped for about 2-3 minutes. She has further deposed that, she saw her son getting down from the train, even though she was sitting in her seat and after drinking water, her son boarded the train and due to the jerk of the train, he slipped and fell down and thereafter she shouted and the train was stopped and that, she gave a complaint to the Railway officials. She has stated that, the body was lying outside the track after the incident and that she did not observe whether the neck was separated from the body. She has denied the suggestion that, her son committed suicide. Presence of AW1 in the train as a co-passenger has not been disputed and even otherwise is well established. 12. A W-2, B.K.Latha is PSI, Udupi Town, who has stated that, on the basis of circumstances and situation she concluded that it is a suicide case. She has admitted that, she has no medical knowledge and her opinion is not based on the report of any doctor. To a question, whether Station Master mentioned that the person has died due to suicide, the answer is 'No'. She has admitted the ticket having found in the packet of the deceased. She has admitted that, she has no medical knowledge and her opinion is not based on the report of any doctor. To a question, whether Station Master mentioned that the person has died due to suicide, the answer is 'No'. She has admitted the ticket having found in the packet of the deceased. It has been made clear that, she recorded the statement of AW-l. To a specific question, whether there was any statement made with regard to act of suicide by the deceased, the answer is 'No'. 13. RW-l, Station Master, Kodaganur has deposed that, on 07.02.2007 while he was on duty, passenger train No.283 arrived at 8:40 hours and after departure, immediately the train was stopped and the guard of the train informed through walkie-takie that, one person was ran over by the train on off side of the platform and he went to the spot and found one male dead body, aged about 25 years, cut into two pieces and lying on the side of the platform and the further action taken by him with regard to the messages having sent and a case being registered. The entire DRM report has been marked as Ex.R-1. RWI has admitted that, he was not an eyewitness to the incident which occurred on 07.02.2007 and that he came to know of the incident when he was informed by the guard through walkie-takie. 14. RW-2, Syed Mukhtar, passenger guard in train No.283 from Arsikere to Hubli on 07.02.2007, has deposed that, the train left Arsikere at 5:30 hours and reached Kodaganur at 8:39 hours and the schedule stoppage of the train is one minute. Due to ACP in Coach SWR GS 01449, he got down from the train immediately to ascertain the ACP and people came running and informed that one boy had fallen on the off side. He found the deceased having died on the spot, which he immediately informed to the Station Master through walkie-talkie and on being told by the Station Master to start the train, the train started at 8:49 hours. Ex.R-2 is the Guard's rough journal. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that, he came to know of the incident after one minute of the train taking motion. He has admitted that, he was not an eyewitness to the incident and that he is not a technician. Ex.R-2 is the Guard's rough journal. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that, he came to know of the incident after one minute of the train taking motion. He has admitted that, he was not an eyewitness to the incident and that he is not a technician. He has also admitted that he has not given any statement before the police. 15. By referring to para-17 of Ex.A-2, the Tribunal has held that, the deceased has committed suicide by coming across train N 0.283, as he was disgusted in life, as per the opinion of the panchas. 16. In my opinion, the Tribunal has erred in holding that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation under S.124A of the Act. The case of the Railway Administration was that, it is on account of negligence of the deceased the accident has occurred. It is also contended that, it is a case of suicide. Indisputably, neither RW-l nor RW-2 were the eye-witness to the fall of the deceased from the train. Hence, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of Railways that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it in its reply statement. A W-I is an eye witness and her evidence probablises the untoward incident. 17. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the Liability of Railway Administration for Death and Injury to Passengers due to Accidents. "Untoward incident" as defined therein, also means and includes the accidental failing of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Indisputably, train No.283 is a passenger train. Section 124A is with regard to compensation on account of untoward incident. 18. There is no denial of the fact that the deceased had a valid ticket' (Ex.A-4) and travelled from R.Nulenur upto Kodaganur. Therefore, he is a passenger as defined under S.2(29) of the Railway Act for the purpose of S.124A as clarified by the Explanation II thereunder. 19. In Jameela & Others (supra), the liability of the Railways in respect of passengers falling down from running train while travelling on valid ticket was considered with reference to provisions under Sections 123, 124A and 154 of the Act and it was held as follows: "9. 19. In Jameela & Others (supra), the liability of the Railways in respect of passengers falling down from running train while travelling on valid ticket was considered with reference to provisions under Sections 123, 124A and 154 of the Act and it was held as follows: "9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour". 20. In Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 , considering the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers", it has been held that, it not only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, but it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. It has been held that, the provision for compensation in the Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, should receive a liberal and wider interpretation. 21. It is relevant to note that, the Tribunal has not considered Ex.R1, DRM report marked through RW-1. A perusal of EX.R-1 shows that, there was a statutory enquiry conducted by the IPF/DVG, who submitted the report under Rules of manner of investigation (untoward incidents) 2003, in terms of which, it is evident that, on 07.02.2007, Smt. Mahantheswari (A WI) and her son M.Anand (deceased) travelled by train No.283 from Ex.Nulenoor to Davanagere vide ticket Nos.05197 & 05198 and for want of seats, they stood inside the compartment near door side. When the train came near Kodaganur Railway Station at KM No.305, Anand, (deceased) who was standing near door slipped and fell down froni the train and got heavy bleeding and died at the spot. The conclusion of the enquiry shows that, deceased Anand was standing near the door of the compartment carelessly, which resulted in his fall from the train and death. The said relevant material piece of evidence has not at all been considered by the Tribunal, which has resulted in the application being dismissed. The appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal is perverse. 22. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that, the contention of Sri N.S. Sanjay Gowda that there was no fault on the part of the Railways and it is a case of suicide or the fall was on account of carelessness and negligence of the deceased is based on total misconception of railway and is not supported by any evidence, besides being contrary to Ex.R-1. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs and the impugned order/award is set-aside. The application filed before the Tribunal stands allowed. The respondent is directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal till the date of payment.