JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an appeal against judgment and order dated 10th August 2007 delivered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench directing appellant Railway to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 400,000/-. 2. Facts, briefly stated, are thus On 7.1.2002, respondent was travelling from Kalyan to Kanpur along with her son Satendar Kumar. They purchased railway tickets no. 63094952 and 63094953 for general compartment of Kushinagar Express. However, on arrival of the train at Kalyan Station, the doors of general compartment were not opened by the passengers inside and they entered reserved compartment. Respondent Sumitradevi requested TTE of reserved compartment to allot them berths in a sleeper coach to which TTE said that since there was no berth then available, he would allot them as and when there is availability. Respondent and her son then sat on floor near toilet. TTE could not allot berths upto Bhusawal and advised them to approach new TTE from Bhusawal. New TTE asked respondent to get down at the next stop. As the train was approaching Raver Station, TTE holding shoulder of respondent pushed her down due to which applicant fell down from the running train at Raver Station and her both legs were crushed under the wheels of bogie. Respondent’s son with the help of guard and other passengers, shifted injured respondent to Railway Hospital and later on to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. As per the discharge card issued by General Hospital, Jalgaon where respondent underwent treatment from 7.1.2002 to 13.1.2002, both her legs were amputated below knee. A criminal case was also registered by GRP against TTE who allegedly pushed respondent from running train. 3. Railway filed Written Statement stating that there was no untoward incident and that claimant Sumitradevi was not a bonafide passenger. 4. Learned Tribunal held in favour of present respondent and granted compensation, as aforesaid. The Tribunal directed that amount of Rs. 100,000/- be paid to claimant by crossed cheque and remaining amount of Rs. 300,000/- be kept in fixed deposit and held claimant entitled to receive quarterly interest on the FDR. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for appellant Railway argued that it has not been established on record that respondent was pushed by TTE. He contended that it was case of self-inflicted injury and squarely covered by proviso (b) to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for appellant Railway argued that it has not been established on record that respondent was pushed by TTE. He contended that it was case of self-inflicted injury and squarely covered by proviso (b) to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that the respondent suffered injury due to her own negligence as she was trying to alight from a running train. He argued that a passenger travelling in a reserved compartment on a general ticket should not be shown any sympathy particularly when neither claimant nor her son could identify TTE during Test Identification Parade, who allegedly pushed respondent from running train. He submitted that appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Mr. Harsulkar, learned counsel opposed arguments advanced on behalf of appellant. He contended that judgment of the Tribunal is based on documentary and oral evidence on record. He relied on ruling in case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay and ors reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 in support of his contention. 7. I have perused evidence led on record before the Tribunal. I have also perused ruling in Union of India v. Prabhakaran (supra). In that case, it was claimed by the Railways that since the passenger was trying to get into the train and fell down, it was not liable to pay compensation. The Apex Court held in paragraph 10 as under: “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.” 8. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the submission of learned counsel for appellant that there was no fault on the part of Railways or that there was negligence on the part of respondent, is based on a total misconception and hence has to be rejected. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the submission of learned counsel for appellant that there was no fault on the part of Railways or that there was negligence on the part of respondent, is based on a total misconception and hence has to be rejected. In the light of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Prabhakaran’s case (supra), whether it was in her anxiety to alight the reserved compartment in order to board the general compartment or whether it was due to push given by TTE that respondent fell down, in either case, respondent Sumitradevi came within the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” which is an ‘untoward incident’ as defined in section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989. 9. In the result, there is no substance in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.