JUDGMENT : Sanjay Yadav, J.:- With consent of learned counsel for the parties, Appeal is finally heard. 2. Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the Judgment dated 6.12.2013 passed in Claim application No. OA/IIu/BPL/2009/0418 whereby the compensation claimed in lieu of death of Anil Kumar Ahirwar by Appellants has been declined. 3. Death occurred on 20.01.2009 at Mandibamora Railway Station when the deceased while travelling from Bina to Bhopal in general compartment of Chattisgarh Express was thrown out because of the pressure of crowd. Death having occurred due to falling from train, led the appellant lay claim compensation claiming it due to untoward incident. 4. Railways however, denied as to deceased being a bonafide passenger and the death being due to untoward incident. It was further contended that the deceased met with the accident while he was boarding the moving train and thus was not the case of accidental falling (Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act, 1989) but was due to his own act (Section 124A proviso (b) of 1989 Act). 5. Railway Claims Tribunal framed following issues- "1- Whether the deceased Anil Kumar Ahirwar s/o Shri Ashok Kumar Ahirwar on 20.01.2009 was a bonafide passenger of Chattisgarh Express ? 2- Whether the death of the deceased Anil Kumar Ahirwar s/o Shri Ashok Kumar Ahirwar was caused due to an untoward incident as defined U/Sec. 123(c)(2) read with Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 ? 3- Whether the Respondent railways are protected under the exemption clause to Section 124-A of the Railways Act and is not liable to pay any compensation ? 4- Whether the applicants are the sole dependants of the deceased Anil Kumar Ahirwar s/o Shri Ashok Kumar Ahirwar and no other dependant ? 5- Relief?" 6. While answering the issues No. 1 and 4 in favour of claimant; however, non suited the claimants on the finding that it was the deceased who was at fault in boarding the moving train and therefore, the death was not due to untoward incident. The Tribunal relied upon the evidence of non-applicants witness on duty Pointsman who in his deposition had stated the deceased who was about to board the moving train was prevented but ignoring the warning he attempted to board the train, in process whereof he fell down and was run over. 7. The Tribunal relied upon the evidence of non-applicants witness on duty Pointsman who in his deposition had stated the deceased who was about to board the moving train was prevented but ignoring the warning he attempted to board the train, in process whereof he fell down and was run over. 7. The question which crops up for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence on record in holding that the death of Anil Kumar since was the result of his own act that despite of warning he attempted to board the moving train. 8. Section 124A stipulates that- 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 or recover damages in respect thereof. The railway administration shall notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident." 9. Exception however is carved out by virtue of proviso which stipulates: "Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to - (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 said untoward incident." 10. Thus in a case where the death is due to self inflicted injury the railway is exonerated from the compensation. 11. In the case at hand the respondents Railways in paragraph 3 of the written statement had taken a categorical stand that- 'It is submitted that the deceased and his friend were trying to board moving train No. 8238 UP Chattisgarh Express at Mandibamora Station, his friend boarded the train but the deceased fell down because of the speed of the train and died on the spot. It is further stated that deceased was most careless and negligent about his personal safety and thereby exposed his life to the utmost danger which tantamount to self inflicted injury.' These contention are duly supported by non-applicant witness Ramgopal Rai Pointsman 'A' station Mandibamora who stated: 12. In these given facts was the deceased not acting like a prudent man and whether he deliberately invited the trouble, is the question for consideration. 13. Self inflicted injury would mean where a person capable of rational voluntary action, act in a manner where in a person of the same state of mind would refrain to act in such condition. By way of example it can be understood in the given facts of present case that a normal person would board the object capable of moving only when it is stationary, as he is capable of assimilating that he may get hurt in boarding a moving object. 14. It is common scene at all the railway stations that they are over crowded. The tickets are not easily available and the commuters have to get in queue for the tickets for General Compartment water joints are not available at easy distance causing inconvenience to the passenger and when they get down at the platform to fetch water, there always is a likelihood of missing the train. The General Compartments are overcrowded and at each ensuing station the crowd get added. 15. In the case at hand, the deceased was aboard a General Compartment and must have got down at Mandibamora either to quench his thrust or may be because of the pressure of crowd to ease himself and found it difficult to aboard the train when it has started moving. It cannot therefore, be said that the deceased was not acting like a prudent man and deliberated a self inflicted injury. The Tribunal in the considered opinion of this Court misconstrued the entire facts on record, resulting in perverse conclusion. 16. Consequently, the judgment is set aside. 17. It cannot therefore, be said that the deceased was not acting like a prudent man and deliberated a self inflicted injury. The Tribunal in the considered opinion of this Court misconstrued the entire facts on record, resulting in perverse conclusion. 16. Consequently, the judgment is set aside. 17. In view whereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that Anil Kumar Ahirwar was a bonafide passenger and his death was within the purview of untoward incident within the meaning of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, the claimant is therefore, entitled to get Rupees Four Lacs towards compensation in lieu whereof, as provided in the Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward (Incidents) Compensation Rules, 1990. The claimants are also entitled for an interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till actual payment. 18. The appeal is allowed to the extent above. No costs.