JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by the award dated 19.5.2011 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No. OA/IIu/293 of 2007 whereby claim petition filed by the appellants for compensation on account of death of their son Sanjay Agrawal was dismissed, present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the appellants filed a claim petition before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, alleging that Sanjay Agrawal was their son who fell down from train No. 1465 Rajkot Express on 3.10.2006 at Vidisha while he was travelling from Ujjain to Vidisha and sustained serious injuries and died. It was prayed that claim petition be allowed and amount be awarded. The claim petition was contested by the respondent on various grounds including on the ground that since the incident was not an untoward incident as defined under section 123 (c) (2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act, therefore, the respondent is not liable for payment of compensation. It was alleged that according to the report of Divisional Railway Manager, alleged incident occurred when the deceased was trying to get down from the running train, therefore, the alleged incident is covered under exceptions (b) and (c) of section 124-A of the Railways Act, i.e., self-inflicted injury or his own criminal act. It was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. 3. After framing of issues and recording of evidence the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against which present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal is illegal and incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It was submitted that learned Tribunal found that the death of the deceased was due to an untoward incident as defined under section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has also found that there is no evidence regarding speed of the train at the time when the deceased was trying to get down from the train. It is submitted that dismissing the claim petition only on the ground that since it is not untoward incident, therefore, it was wrong decision on the part of deceased is perverse. It is submitted that on this ground claim petition could not have been dismissed. It is submitted that dismissing the claim petition only on the ground that since it is not untoward incident, therefore, it was wrong decision on the part of deceased is perverse. It is submitted that on this ground claim petition could not have been dismissed. It is submitted that appeal filed by appellants be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on due appreciation of evidence which requires no interference. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 6. From perusal of record, it appears that at the relevant time deceased Sanjay Agrawal was travelling from Ujjain to Vidisha in the said train along with his mother Shashi Agrawal and sister Vinita Agrawal. It has also come in evidence that all of them were travelling in general compartment. It has also come on record that the compartment in which the deceased was travelling was overcrowded. It has also come in evidence that at the relevant time Vinita had got down. 7. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act deals with the liability of railway administration for death and injuries to passengers due to accident. Section 123 of the Act deals with the definitions. Sub-section (c) of section 123 lays down the definition of untoward incidents, which reads as under : "123 (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 on 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." 8. Section 124-A deals with compensation on account of untoward incident, according to which 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. This section further lays down that the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed as a result of such unwarranted incident. Proviso of this section lays down the circumstances in which no compensation shall be payable if the passenger dies or suffers injury, which are as under : (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. 9. In the matter of Thomas v. Union of India, 2008 ACJ 1921 (Kerala), wherein the passenger was attempting to get off the train as he had boarded a wrong train when he fell down and his legs were crushed under the wheels and the defence was that the accident occurred due to his own negligence, and the question for consideration before Hon'ble Kerala High Court was whether negligence of injured can disentitle him from claiming compensation under section 124-A of Railways Act, Divisional Bench of Kerala High Court held that negligence of either the railway administration or that of the injured is not relevant. It was further held that since the passenger has not suffered injuries due to any of the reasons stated in exceptions (a) to (e) of proviso to section 124-A, therefore, he is entitled for compensation. It was further held that since the passenger has not suffered injuries due to any of the reasons stated in exceptions (a) to (e) of proviso to section 124-A, therefore, he is entitled for compensation. In the matter of Jameela v. Union of India, 2010 ACJ 2453 (SC), wherein deceased was standing at open door of compartment of a running train and had fallen to his death, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since the death of said passenger was neither a case of suicide nor as a result of self-inflicted injury or his own criminal act nor was he in a state of intoxication or insanity, nor any natural cause or disease, therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation. In the matter of Mohan Lal v. Union of India, 2012 ACJ 2507 (P&H), wherein passenger boarded a wrong train and as soon as she realised that it is a wrong train she tried to de-board the said train and in that process she fell and died on the spot, Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and she died in an untoward incident, hence entitled for compensation. 10. In the matter of Union of India v. P. Krishnan, 2013 (1) TAC 166 (Mad), wherein deceased while travelling in electric train was hit by an electric post and as a result of which he fell down from the train and died and the claim petition filed was opposed on the ground that deceased was not a bona fide passenger and he fell down from train and died on account of his own negligence and carelessness, the Tribunal concluded that deceased was a bona fide passenger on the relevant date and no definite material was found that deceased was careless and negligent and thereby hit by principle of self-inflicted injury, Madras High Court held that when a person accidentally falls from train because of some jerk in such circumstances it would not amount to self-inflicted injury but an untoward incident and the claimants are entitled for compensation. 11. In the present case, learned Tribunal has found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant ticket was also found. The fact that the deceased was bona fide passenger is further corroborated from the evidence of his mother and sister who were the co-passengers. 11. In the present case, learned Tribunal has found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant ticket was also found. The fact that the deceased was bona fide passenger is further corroborated from the evidence of his mother and sister who were the co-passengers. In the facts and circumstances of the case, only because the learned Tribunal found that it was a wrong decision on the part of the deceased when he was de-boarding from the moving train, the claim petition cannot be dismissed, as it was not a self-inflicted injury and was an untoward incident. 12. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside holding that the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000. Respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 along with interest from the date of accident at the rate of 9 per cent per annum to the appellants. The learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80 per cent of the said amount on long-term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 2 in the nearest nationalized bank in the area where the appellant No. 2 is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. account of appellant No. 2, which shall be opened by the appellant No. 2 from where appellant No. 2 can withdraw the amount as per her needs. However, on an application by the appellant No. 2 this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant No. 2. 13. No order as to costs.