This appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenges the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, which dismissed the appellant's claim for compensation for injuries sustained in an untoward incident. The Tribunal had ruled the appellant was not a bona fide passenger and the injuries were self-inflicted due to criminal negligence. The appellant argued he mistakenly boarded the wrong train and fell while attempting to deboard. The court, considering the evidence and legal precedents, determined the appellant was a bona fide passenger and the incident was untoward, warranting compensation of Rs. 8,00,000.

Background Facts:

• On August 13, 2015, the injured purchased a ticket at Gondia Railway Station for travel to Balaghat but mistakenly boarded the Gondia-Ballarshah train.
• While attempting to deboard, the train jerked, causing the injured to fall and sustain leg injuries.

Respondent-Railways' Argument:

• The Railways contended the injured was not a bona fide passenger and his injuries were self-inflicted due to his own negligence in boarding and jumping from the wrong train.

Tribunal Proceedings:

• Evidence was presented by both parties, including testimonies from the injured and the train's guard.
• The Tribunal dismissed the claim, siding with the Railways' argument.

Appellant's Arguments:

• The injured was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket.
• The incident was an untoward incident, as defined by Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
• The injury was due to an accidental fall, not a criminal act or self-inflicted.

Legal Considerations:

• Definitions and interpretations of "passenger" and "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, 1989.
• Relevant case law, including Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, which support a liberal interpretation of the Act for the benefit of claimants.

Court's Analysis:

• The injured had a valid ticket and boarded the wrong train by mistake, which does not negate his status as a bona fide passenger.
• The fall was accidental and due to an error of judgment, not a criminal act or self-inflicted injury.
• The Railways failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the injury was self-inflicted.

Compensation:

• Based on the amended Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 8,00,000.
• The compensation is divided among the legal heirs of the deceased injured.

Judgment:

1. The Tribunal's judgment dated May 4, 2018, is set aside.
2. The Railways is directed to pay Rs. 8,00,000 in compensation within four months.
3. The compensation is to be distributed as 50% to appellant No.1 and the remainder equally among appellant Nos.2 to 6.
4. No interest on the compensation if paid within four months; otherwise, 6% interest per annum from the date of judgment until realization.
5. No order as to costs.