ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present claim application has been filed by the wife of the deceased, namely, Smt Krishna Devi. It has been asserted in the claim application that on 02.09.2010, Lalit Prasad Sinhadeceased while boarding the passenger train bearing No.302 DN Varanasi-Asansole Passenger, at Dehri-on-Sone, fell down and suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. 3. The Railway Claim Tribunal has framed four issues which are quoted hereunder: i. Whether Lalit Prasad Sinha was a bonafide passenger on 02.09.2010? ii. Whether any untoward incident has defined in Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 has occurred with the victim? iii. Whether applicants are entitled to claim? iv. Relief, if any? 4. So far as finding of bonafide passenger is concerned, the findings have been recorded in favour of the claimant. So far as issue no.2 regarding untoward incident is concerned, the same has been rejected merely on the ground that the deceased was trying to board a moving train, which is in violation of railway act for safety of passenger and as such it is not covered under accidental fall as defined in Section 123 (c) (ii) of the Railways Act, 1989. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court reported in 2018 (2) JBCJ 478 (SC) in the case of Union of India vrs. Rina Devi from which paragraphs 16.6 is quoted hereunder: 16.6 We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entering a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court reported in (2010) 12 SCC 443 in the case of Jameela and Ors. Vrs. Union of India from which paragraphs 6 to 12 are quoted hereunder: 6. Before the High Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the Railways on the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act which provides that no compensation will be payable under that section by the Railway Administration if the passenger died or suffered injury due to (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him, (b) self-inflicted injury, or (c) his own criminal act. A reference was also made to Section 154 of the Act which provides that if any person does any act in a rash and negligent manner, or omits to do what he is legally bound to do, and the act or omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person travelling or being upon any Railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. It was further contended on behalf of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez who was travelling in a negligent manner was standing at the door from where he fell down near Magarwara Railway Station, where the train does not stop. It was further contended on behalf of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez who was travelling in a negligent manner was standing at the door from where he fell down near Magarwara Railway Station, where the train does not stop. (It needs to be pointed out that this contention could only be based on speculation, as admittedly there was no eyewitness to the accident.) The High Court accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the Railways and allowed the appeal observing as follows: “On the basis of the law and facts indicated by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that in the present case the victim is to be blamed for the incident being negligent and therefore this case is not covered by the definition of untoward incident. However, so far as the compensation is concerned the case of the claimant is covered by the provision of Section 124A as because of his own negligence the deceased had fallen down from the train which caused his death. Further, in the light of the fact that the deceased acted in a negligent manner without any precaution of safety by station (sic) going at the open door of the running train which resulted into his death.” 7. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness to the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railways that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Act. 8. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. 8. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123, the first section of the Chapter, has definition clauses. Clause (c) defines “untoward incident” which insofar as relevant for the present case is as under: “123. (c) ‘untoward incident’ means— (1)(i)-(iii) * * * (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 9. Section 124-A of the Act provides as follows: “124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.— 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, 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: 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 the said untoward incident. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, ‘passenger’ includes— (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.” 10. It is not denied by the Railways that M. Hafeez fell down from the train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a “passenger” for the purpose of Section 124-A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under Section 124-A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. He was, therefore, clearly a “passenger” for the purpose of Section 124-A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under Section 124-A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. But the proviso to the section says that the Railway Administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). 11. Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railways that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental. 12. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railways, that the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the Railways 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 a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the Railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favour. 7. On the basis of above judgments, it is clear that statute has provided for compensation on the principle of no fault and compensation cannot be denied on account of contributory negligence. Boarding a moving train is a negligent act but it does not cover under the definition of self inflicted injury or his own criminal act. 8. Thus, this Court holds that deceased is covered under the definition of untoward incident, accordingly the claimant is entitled for compensation. 9. Boarding a moving train is a negligent act but it does not cover under the definition of self inflicted injury or his own criminal act. 8. Thus, this Court holds that deceased is covered under the definition of untoward incident, accordingly the claimant is entitled for compensation. 9. In view of the above discussion, Respondent-railway is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lacs) to the claimant as per the mandate of Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra), as compensation amount was prevailing on the date of accident i.e. 02.09.2010. Further it will carry interest @ 7% from the date of accident. 10. With above direction, the present appeal is hereby allowed. Appeal allowed.