ANU SIVARAMAN, J. - (1.)The applicants before the Railways Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in Original Application No.63 of 2013 are the appellants herein.
They are the widow, daughter and minor son of Babu Rajan, aged 43 years who had died in an untoward incident which occurred on 21.01.2013. In the claim petition, the appellants had averred that late Babu Rajan boarded Train No.12082, Jan Sathabdi Express from Kollam Junction at 15.15 hrs on 21.01.2013, that he had purchased a ticket, which was lost in the accident, for travel to Calicut, that at about 10 PM, while he was washing his hands after going to the toilet, he was thrown out of the train due to a violent jerking and in that accident, he sustained fatal injuries. It was stated that he was working abroad and had come home on leave. The appellants had in the application prayed for award of the sum of Rs.6,00,000/ - as compensation.

(2.)The respondent filed a written statement contending that a passenger had been reported to have fallen from Train No.12082 between Platform No.1 of Parappanangadi Railway station and LC gate at Km 639/9, at about 22 hrs on 21.01.2013, that he was found dead by the Station Master and the matter was reported to the local police. It was also stated that ticket No.793712954 which was purchased for the journey from Kayamkulam to Tirur was recovered from the body of the victim. Since the body was found near Parappanangadi railway station, which comes after Tirur, the respondent contended that the deceased might have jumped or detrained from the moving train. It is stated that "this adventurous act can only be described as self -inflicted injury and the railways cannot be held liable for self -inflicted injury under section 124A(b) of the Railways Act, 1989".
(3.)Before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Exts. A1 to A5 were produced and marked on the side of the claimants and Ext.R1 report of the DRM was produced on the side of the respondents. After considering the pleadings and the materials on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the deceased had a valid ticket to travel from Kayamkulam to Tirur, he was not a passenger as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 at the time of his fall from the train as Parappangadi comes after Tirur and before Kozhikode. It was further held that the victim being a mature adult, his detraining from the train when it slowed down on account of the imposition of a caution order amounts to criminal negligence and is exempted under the proviso to section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The application for compensation was therefore dismissed holding that the railways had no liability to compensate the claimants.