Judgment Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 5.3.2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 4 lakhs, the present Appeal has been filed by the appellant -Union of India through Railways. 2. In support of the Appeal, Mr N.P. Lambat, learned counsel for the appellant made following submissions :- (i) The case at hand did not squarely fall within the category of "untoward incident" and, therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in making the award. (ii) Deceased-Umabai though was a bona fide passenger, had boarded the train which was supposed to go to the Maintenance Yard and which was not occupied by anybody. There was thus negligence on the part of Umabai, who having realised that she had boarded a wrong train jumped off from the same. (iii) Umabai could have pulled the chain or reached up to the Maintenance Yard and then got down herself from the train. On the contrary, Umabai decided to jump off from the running train and, as such, this cannot be called as a case of untoward incident but was a clear cut case of negligence on her part and, therefore, no compensation could be paid under law. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition. 3. Per contra, Smt. S.P. Deshpande, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents relied on two decisions in the case of (1) (2008) 9 SCC 527 : Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others ; and, (2) 2011 (1) TAC 10 (SC) in the case of Jameela and others vs. Union of India and argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted the term "untoward incident" in a broader sense, keeping in mind the nature of legislation being the benevolent legislation and, therefore, even assuming that there was negligence on the part of Umabai in jumping out of the train and getting killed under the wheels of the train, still the Railways would be responsible for the accident and liable for making payment of compensation. According to her, the case squarely falls within the ambit of the said two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Lambat, learned counsel for appellant does not dispute the proposition of law laid down in those decisions. 4. According to her, the case squarely falls within the ambit of the said two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Lambat, learned counsel for appellant does not dispute the proposition of law laid down in those decisions. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for rival parties, following points arise for consideration of this Court which is framed thus:- (1) "Whether the Tribunal committed an error in making an award of compensation when there was evidence on record to show that Umabai had boarded a wrong train then jumped out of a moving train and came under its wheels and was cut into two pieces and when she herself was negligent and whether the same was wrongly held to be an untoward incident? .... No (2) What order: ..Appeal is dismissed. 5. I have perused the impugned judgment and order. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that Umabai was a bona fide passenger in as much as she had purchased a valid ticket which was found on her person. Her brother AW -2 Madhav was examined, whose evidence has not been shattered in the cross-examination and, therefore, there is no difficulty in accepting that Umabai was a bona fide passenger. Even from the evidence of AW 2-Madhav it appears that Madhav had come to the platform to see her off and was on the platform when Umabai boarded the train in question. She had no inkling that the train was to go to the Maintenance Yard. There was no person in the train but then under the bona fide belief and honest perception, Umabai entered and sat in the train and after having realised that there was no other passenger when the train got momentum, she jumped from the train and instead of landing on the platform, unfortunately she landed under the wheels of the train and was cut into two pieces. It clearly appears from the evidence that there was negligence on her part in not waiting for some time. But she endeavoured to come out of moving train by jumping towards the platform. She did not do it deliberately but under a bona fide belief. This is nothing but an "untoward incident". 6. It clearly appears from the evidence that there was negligence on her part in not waiting for some time. But she endeavoured to come out of moving train by jumping towards the platform. She did not do it deliberately but under a bona fide belief. This is nothing but an "untoward incident". 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted the law in favour of the bona fide passengers like Umabai, taking into consideration the nature of the legislation which is a welfare legislation. That being the case, the law pronounced by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two decisions will have to be followed in its letter and spirit.. The following paragraph No.9 in the case of Jameela (cited supra) would make the position clear :- "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 124-A. 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 negligence act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour. " 7. I find thus that the Tribunal did not commit any error in awarding the compensation. Hence, I make the following order : ORDER First Appeal No.1175 /2010 is dismissed with no order as to costs. Learned counsel for respondents prays for costs. However I am not inclined to grant the same as the Appeal has been decided expeditiously.