( 1 ) THIS Appeal is preferred by the Railway administration aggrieved by the award dated 3-2-1998 passed by the Railway Claims tribunal, Secunderabad in O. A. A. No. 39 of 1997 holding that the respondent is liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with regard to the death of the deceased. ( 2 ) THE above O. A. A. is filed alleging that the deceased fell down from Train No. 8401, okha Express at about 3-30 AM on 3-6-1996 while the train was running between bonakalu and Naghulavancha Railway stations and received serious injuries and died on the spot and claiming an amount of rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation. ( 3 ) THE respondent/railway contested the matter and filed a written statement for calling the applications to prove all the relevant allegations made in the application. ( 4 ) CONSIDERING the rival contentions and the material on record, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration: (i) Whether the Applicants are dependents of the deceased? (ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? (iii) Whether the accidental fall as alleged is not an untoward incident? (iv) To what relief? ( 5 ) ON behalf of the applications P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent no evidence was adduced. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the documents Exs. A-3 and A-4, the Tribunal answered the first issues as regards the relationship of the applicant with the deceased in favour of the claimants/applicants. As regards the second issue, in the light of evidence of P. W. 2, who stated the deceased purchased a journey ticket and Ex. A-2 inquest report held that the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket as a bona fide passsenger. As regards the third issue, the Tribunal considered the evidence of P. W. 2, who is a direct witness, answered in favour of the claimants / applicants holding that the deceased fell down from the above train while it was running between above two stations and died as a result of the injuries and that the deceased death is on account of an untoward incident. ( 7 ) NOW coming to the question of grant of compensation, though the Tribunal has granted the compensation of Rs. ( 7 ) NOW coming to the question of grant of compensation, though the Tribunal has granted the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as claimed by the applicant, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent herein submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal needs modification and that the appellant is entitled to a sum of rs. 4,00,000/- as per Rule 3 Part I, of the amended Railway Accident Compensation rules, dated 1-11-1997 and placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court in Rathi Menon v. Union of India. ( 8 ) THE learned standing counsel for the appellants/railways submitted that the deceased was not having journey ticket and therefore, he is not a bonafide passenger. Because of his carelessness and negligence only in entering into a moving train, he fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot and Railways is not liable to pay any compensation. ( 9 ) I am unable to appreciate the above contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant-respondent, since the P. W. 2, an eyewitness and whose statement was recorded at the time of conducting inquest, stated that the deceased had purchased the ticket and the same was found in the back pocket of the pant of the deceased and there cannot be any doubt that the deceased travelled on a valid ticket. Therefore, he is a bona fide passenger and further when he is standing near the door of the coach due to heavy rush in the compartment, he fell down and sustained injuries, due to which he died. ( 10 ) ON considering the meaning of untoward incident , the Railway administration is liable to pay the compsensation. In the absence of any contradictory evidence adduced from the railway Administration, the order impugned is confirmed, following the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Rathi Menon v. Union of India (1 supra) that when a cross-objection is filed, to award the compensation as contemplated under the schedule appended to the rules 1990 as per the Amended Rules of 1990, a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs is fixed under the schedule. The said amendment came into force with effect from 1-11-1997. Though the incident occured on 3-6-1996, but the Tribunal has disposed of the petitioner on 3-2-1998 and by that time the amendment to the schedule came into force. 4 lakhs is fixed under the schedule. The said amendment came into force with effect from 1-11-1997. Though the incident occured on 3-6-1996, but the Tribunal has disposed of the petitioner on 3-2-1998 and by that time the amendment to the schedule came into force. Therefore, the Tribunal should have awarded the compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs instead of Rs. 2 lakhs. Though the delay condone petition is dismissed, the Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of the Railway act and Rules made there-under, held that the provisions are meant to afford just and reasonable compensation to the victims in a speedier measure. If a person files a suit, the amount of compensation will depend upon what the Court considers just and reasonable on the date of determination. Hence, when he approaches the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation, the determination of the amount should be as on the date of such determination, in terms of schedule appended to the Rules, 1990. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation granted by the Tribunal. Accordingly the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs as per the schedule, with 9% interest p. a. ( 12 ) SUBJECT to above modification, the cross-objections are allowed and appeal filed by Railways stands dismissed. No costs.