JUDGMENT : – This miscellaneous appeal under section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed against the award dated 24-6-2021 passed by Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No. OA/IIu/BPL/068/2019 by which the claim petition filed by the appellants for grant of compensation has been rejected mainly on the ground that the claim of the appellants is hit by section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 and secondly, the deceased was not travelling with a valid ticket. 2. Since the date of the incident and the death of the deceased are not in dispute, therefore, the only questions for consideration are : (i) whether deceased Shambhu Prasad Tiwari was travelling with a validly issued ticket or not? (ii) whether the claim is hit by section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989? (i) whether the deceased Shambhu Prasad Tiwar was traveling with a validly issued railway ticket ? 3. It is the case that when the deceased was trying to deboard a moving train, he slipped on the platform, as a result, both of his legs were badly damaged. Since the deceased was all alone, therefore, his son was informed. A Roznamcha Sanha, A/1 was recorded by Su- Inspector, R.P.F. outpost Beohari on 26-6-2018. The said Roznamcha Sanha reads as under : 4. From the aforesaid document, it is clear that the ticket numbers which the deceased was carrying are specifically mentioned. It is also clear from the Roznamcha Sanha that the deceased was all alone and his children were informed by mobile. Since the deceased was in a badly injured shape and he was not accompanied by any of his family members, therefore, it was not expected for the injured/deceased to keep the tickets in a safe custody. Furthermore, from the Roznamcha Sanha, it is clear that before writing the Roznamcha Sanha the injured/deceased was sent to the hospital whereas the Roznamcha Sanha must have been written in the police station/outpost. The manner in which the Roznamcha Sanha has been written it is clear that at the time of writing the Roznamcha Sanha, the Sub-Inspector, R.P.F. was in possession of the tickets which the deceased was carrying with him. The manner in which the Roznamcha Sanha has been written it is clear that at the time of writing the Roznamcha Sanha, the Sub-Inspector, R.P.F. was in possession of the tickets which the deceased was carrying with him. Thus, if the claimants could not file the tickets before the Claims Tribunal, then no adverse inference can be drawn against the claimants, even otherwise the respondent has not disputed that the ticket numbers mentioned in the Roznamcha Sanha were not issued at all. 5. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that by putting the reverse burden of proof on the claimants in the face of the Roznamcha Sanha written by Sub-Inspector, R.P.F., the Claims Tribunal has committed a material illegality. The claimants had discharged their initial burden of proof to show that the deceased was travelling with a validly issued railway ticket. (ii) Whether the respondent is not liable to pay compensation in view of section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 6. It is true that the case of the parties is that the deceased slipped from the train while he was trying to deboard from a moving train. Therefore, the next question for consideration would be as to whether the deceased himself was responsible for the untoward incident or not. 7. The question is no more res integra. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 has held as under : “25. 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 the 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 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or deboarding a train will be an “untoward incident” entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.” 9. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or deboarding a train will be an “untoward incident” entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.” 9. The counsel for the appellants could not point out any provision of law to show that any attempt to deboard a moving train is an offence. Therefore, section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra) has also held that an attempt to deboard a moving train will not fall under proviso to section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal committed a material illegality by rejecting the claim of the claimants on the ground that the deceased was not travelling in a train with a validly issued railway ticket and his claim is hit by section 124-A of Railways Act. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants are entitled to seek compensation. 11. So far as to the question of quantum is concerned, the said question has not been considered by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, instead of deciding the said question by itself, this Court thinks it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Railway Claims Tribunal to decide the question of quantum of compensation. 12. It is made clear that except the quantum of compensation, no other question shall be considered by the Railway Claims Tribunal. 13. Accordingly, the order dated 24-6-2021 passed by Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No. OA/IIu/BPL/068/2019 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to decide the question of quantum of compensation. 14. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 27th February, 2013. No further notice is required to be issued to any of the parties. 15. The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.