Oral JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th December, 2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Application No. OA 9800030, whereby the claim application claiming a compensation for the untoward incident in which the son of the claimant died while detraining the train, has been rejected. 2. The short fact is that the claimant was travelling with his wife and son by Train No. 49UP from Kumedpur to Mukaria on 09.11.1996 after purchasing valid second class journey ticket. On reaching Mukaria Station, where the train had a very brief halt, having found that both the doors for detraining on the platform side were jammed ; one on account of technical fault and the other on account of the storage of number of wheat bags, the claimant along with his wife and son was forced to detrain the train on the non-platform side, however, on detraining the wife of the claimant got hit by Train No. 5716 UP coming on the adjacent rail line resulting into the serious injuries leading to her death. The claimant accordingly after completing the necessary formalities filed the aforesaid claim application claiming a compensation for the death of his wife. The Railway administration appeared and filed the written statement taking the stand that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger; secondly the claim application has been filed after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, and thirdly, that the incident in question is not a untoward incident as defined under section 123(c) read with section 124(A) of the Railway Act, 1989. Accordingly, the stand was taken that the claim is not admissible and the claim application deserves to be dismissed. However, no evidence was led on behalf of the Railway. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant concluded that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The claimant as well as the deceased were forced to detrain on the non-platform side as both the doors of the bogie on the platform side were jammed ; one on account of technical fault and the other on account of storage of wheat bags. The Tribunal further condoned the delay in filing the claim application vide its order dated 14th May, 2002. The Tribunal further condoned the delay in filing the claim application vide its order dated 14th May, 2002. The Tribunal further found that the Railway administration failed to lead any evidence to controvert or rebut the applicant’s version that the claimant and the deceased were forced to detrain on the non-platform side. In other words, the Tribunal accepted the case of the applicant, however declined to award compensation for the reason that the incident although admitted disentitles the claimant to receive the compensation since the incident cannot be said to be a untoward incident on conjoint reading of section 123(C) and 124(A) of the Railway Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that all the facts leading to the death of the wife of the claimant is admitted as held by the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal declined to allow compensation upon holding that the incident in which the wife of the claimant died does not come within the meaning of Untoward Incident. Learned counsel further submits that any incident causing injury or death in connection with boarding or detraining the train in course of journey is an untoward incident entitling to receive compensation as prescribed under The Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the “Compensation Rules”). 4. Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Railway administration although did not dispute any finding of the Tribunal with respect to the incident in which the wife of the claimant died, however submits that the claimant or his deceased wife even though were forced to detrain on the non-platform side, nonetheless while detraining the train on the non-platform side they ought to have taken precaution and having not taken such precaution their action can be taken as self inflicted injury, an act of negligence, and as such, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation on account of the death of his wife. 5. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the order under the appeal, none of the facts are in dispute, rather the Tribunal has accepted the evidence on record adduced on behalf of the applicant leading to the death of the wife of the claimant while detraining from the train on the non-platform side and getting hit by a train coming on the adjacent line. It is well settled in law that one cannot take advantage of his own wrong. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that both the doors towards the platform side were jammed; one on account of technical fault with the door and the other on account of storage of number wheat bags at the door which forced the claimant and his wife to detrain the train on the non-platform side of the station where the train had a very brief halt for about 2-3 minutes. The contention of the learned counsel for the Railway that the act of detraining from the train on the non-platform side, even in the admitted circumstances as in this case, getting injured by the deceased leading to her death would be termed as serious negligence and a self inflicted injury which disentitles the claim, cannot be accepted. The incident in which while boarding or detraining the train in the given circumstances in which the doors on the platform side could not have access, the incident cannot be said to be a self inflicted injury disentitling the compensation. 6. For the reasons and discussions made above, the order under appeal cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly set aside. The Railway administration is accordingly directed to pay compensation in terms of Part I of the Schedule under Rule 3 of the aforesaid Compensation Rules as admissible on the date of passing of the award with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment. Such payment be made within a period of three months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. 7. The appeal accordingly stands allowed. 8. The lower Court’s record be sent down without delay.