1. This appeal is filed by the original applicants challenging the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dated 30 April 2018, whereby the application for compensation came to be rejected on the ground that the incident which led to the death of the deceased was not an “untoward incident”, which is a pre-condition for claiming compensation.

2. Insofar as the issue of bona fide passenger is concerned, the findings are in favour of the original claimants since the ticket was found.

3. I have heard Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pandian, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. On 27 August 2011, the deceased alongwith his wife and children was travelling from Pune to Tandur by Hyderabad Express on a reserved ticket. During the night time, the deceased when the train reached Chittapur Railway Station got down on the other side of the platform for attending nature’s call. In the meanwhile, the train started moving and the deceased made an attempt to re-board the train at which point of time, he lost his balance and fell down. His body came under the wheels and he suffered severe injuries, whereby his upper limbs were cut, head was separated and the left leg was also cut at ankle resulting in his death.

5. Whether the above will constitute as an “untoward incident” or not is an issue for my consideration. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines “untoward incident” and clause (2) states that an “untoward incident” means the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

6. In the case diary prepared by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Chittapur it is recorded that the deceased accidentally fell down from the train due to loss of balance while re-boarding the train. The postmortem report also certifies death due to crush injury.

7. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the deceased while trying to re-board the moving train fell down and came under the wheels, which resulted in severe injuries leading to his death. Whether the passenger who got down on the wrong side for attending to nature’s call is not an issue before me. The death occurred while re-boarding the train after attending the nature’s call. If while attending natures call, he would have been hit by a train on the other side, then it could have been argued that he was negligent in getting down on the wrong side to attend the nature’s call but however that is not the case over here. The incident occurred while re-boarding the train from the wrong side. Admittedly, the deceased was travelling with his family members and had a valid ticket. In my view, this would fall within the phrase “accidental falling” of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

8. The statement of the eye witness at the Railway Station which states that the deceased while attending to the nature’s call got down on the wrong side of the station and while trying to re-board the train fell down does not take the incident outside the purview of an “untoward incident” as defined but it supports the case of the original applicants-appellants. The accident occurred not while attending to nature’s call from a train coming from the other side, but the accident occurred while re-boarding the train in which the deceased was travelling.

9. It is not the case of the Railways that it is the case of suicide. Therefore, the nature of injury would not come in the way of the applicants’ claiming the compensation. There is thin line between negligence and taking undue care. The deceased should not have got down on the wrong side for attending the nature’s call since he was travelling in a reserved compartment, but for whatever reason he got down, the accident occurred while re-boarding the train, when the train started moving, and it is this aspect which has to be considered for deciding the entitlement of the compensation.

10. The police report states that, on investigation, the deceased accidentally fell due to loss of balance and died. In the said report, the police have also stated that it was a case of accidental fall from the train. The son of the deceased who was travelling with his father also gave a statement that the incident occurred, when his father went to attend to nature’s call and fell down from the train and died on the spot. The respondent has not led any evidence of any witness in support of their contention. In a welfare legislation like the present one where the borderline is thin, and more particularly in the facts of the present case, the issue should be considered in favour of the claimants for getting the compensation.

11. I draw support for my above analysis from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sudhir Yadav & Ors. vs. Union of India1 wherein on very identical and similar fact situation, the claim was allowed. This decision squarely supports the case of the present appellants.

12. In view of my above analysis, the impugned order to the extent that it dismisses the application on the ground that the incident does not fall within the meaning of the term “untoward incident” is reversed.

13. The appellants-applicants to make an application to the respondent for claiming the compensation by producing the present order and the Tribunal’s order. The respondent to remit the compensation amount of Rs.4 lakhs alongwith the interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident, subject to a cap of Rs.8,00,000/- within twelve weeks from such an application to the bank accounts of the claimants. The claimants to give details of their bank accounts to the authorities of the respondent. The respondent should remit the amounts to the appellants equally.

14. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.