JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:-Smt. Meniben wd/o Paljibhai Parmar has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 26-2-1993 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Application No. 4/0-A/II/RCT-NGP/92 whereby the claim of widow seeking compensation under section 124 of the Railway Act, 1989 (for short, the Railways Act) has been rejected on the sole ground that the deceased Paljibhai was not a bona fide passenger in the railway train, on the date of the accident. Brief facts are required to be stated as under : 2. The deceased Paljibhai boarded into the railway train on 9-7-1992 bearing No. 8033 down Ahmedabad Hawarah Express. He had travelled and crossed the distance of about 844 Km. The railway train derailed between Dhamangaon-Talni railway station and because of that the accident occurred causing death of Paljibhai and other 14 passengers. Maniben is the widow who has filed the claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 18-8-1992 seeking recovery of compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs in view of the provisions of sections 123(b) read with 124 and 125 of the Railway Act on the contentions that her husband Paljibhai was travelling in the railway train in connection with the work of his employer and therefore, the widow is entitled to received the compensation. It is contented on behalf of the railway administration that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the railway train at the time of accident and therefore his widow is not entitle to receive compensation. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed several issues. The parties adduced the evidence before the Tribunal. On consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal recorded the finding that Paljibhai was not a bona fide passenger in the Ahmedabad-Howarah express train and therefore, his widow is not entitle to receive compensation. Consistent with this finding, the Tribunal dismissed the claim. This order dismissing the claim application, is challenged in this appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the deceased was travelling for official duty and his employer had paid him sufficient money to purchase journey ticket. The deceased was holding proper journey ticket which might have been lost in the train accident. He contended that in the first information report lodged at the Police Station, Dhamangaon, it has been mentioned that Paljibhai was one of the victim of the ill-feted train. The deceased was holding proper journey ticket which might have been lost in the train accident. He contended that in the first information report lodged at the Police Station, Dhamangaon, it has been mentioned that Paljibhai was one of the victim of the ill-feted train. He contended that though the name of the deceased did not appear in the reservation chart in Sleeper Coach S/I from where the dead body was recovered, the deceased was travelling with ticket and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in reaching the conclusion that the P.N.R. No. 510131 and Railway Ticket No. 72234469 was mentioned in the record at the time of granting ex gratia payment to the brother of deceased and that there was contravention of the provisions of sections 53, 55 and 137 of Railway Act. He contended that the onus is on the railway administration to prove that the deceased was travelling without ticket or was not a bona fide passenger and railway department did not discharge the burden of proof and therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the railway train. He contended that even the presumption can be drawn in view of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act keeping in view the prohibition under section 68 of the Railway Act against boarding the train without ticket and that the deceased was bona fide passenger. He contended that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law and in support of these submissions he relied on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of (Rajkumari another v. Union of India)1, 1994(1) T.A.C. 67. 4. The learned Counsel further contended that the claimant would be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 4 lakh in view of the amendment introduced by amendment of Rules and Schedule of compensation revised the rate of compensation w.e.f. 1-11-1997. He contended that he has filed application for amendment in the prayer clause of this appeal in accordance with the amendment of the Rules for claiming compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs and this Court by the order dated 30-8-2002 directed that the said application would be considered at the time of final hearing of this appeal and therefore, according to him, claimant is entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs. 4 lakhs and this Court by the order dated 30-8-2002 directed that the said application would be considered at the time of final hearing of this appeal and therefore, according to him, claimant is entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs. He contended that the amendment of the Rules can be applied retrospectively and in support of these submissions he relied on the decision of Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of (Rathi Menon v. Union of India)2, 2001(I) A.C.C. 453(S.C.). 5. Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the respondent railway administration contended that deceased Paljibhai Parmar was not holding valid pass or ticket on the date of the accident and he was not a bona fide passenger. He contended that the deceased was travelling on the ticket of Mr. K.L. Rana who was one of the employees of the same Venus Engineering Company wherein the deceased was also an employee and therefore, this was in contravention of the provisions of section 226-A of the Railways Act. He contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and it has been born out from the record that brother of the deceased had claimed ex gratia payment on the basis of the ticket bearing P.N.R. No. 510131 and railway ticket No. 72234469 by which Birth No. 24 was reserved in S/I coach No. 8993 which was reserved in the name of Mr. K.L. Rana. He contended that the Tribunal has considered the legal position together with the evidence and rightly recorded findings that the dependants of the deceased are not entitled to get any compensation because the deceased was not a bona fide passenger travelling in the railway train. He contended that no case has been made out for interference in to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 6. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It would be useful to reproduce relevant provisions of the Railways Act as under : 53. 6. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It would be useful to reproduce relevant provisions of the Railways Act as under : 53. Prohibition against transfer of certain tickets.---A ticket issued in the name of a person shall be used only by that person : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall prevent mutual transfer of a seat or berth by passengers travelling by the same train: Provided further that a railway servant authorised in this behalf may permit change of a name of passenger having reserved a seat or berth subject to such circumstances as may be prescribed. 55. Prohibition against travelling without pass or ticket.-No person shall enter or remain in any carriage on a railway for the purpose of travelling therein as a passenger unless he has with him a proper pass or ticket or obtained permission of a railway servant authorised in this behalf for such travel. (2) A person obtaining permission under sub-section (1) shall ordinarily get a certificate from the railway servant referred to in that sub-section that he has been permitted to travel in such carriage on condition that he subsequently pays the fare payable for the distance to be travelled. 137. Fraudulently travelling or attempting to travel without proper pass or ticket.-(1) If any person, with intent to defraud a railway administration.- (a) enters or remains in any carriage on a railways or travels in a train in contravention of section 55, or (b) uses or attempts to use a single pass or a single ticket which has already been used on a previous journey or in the case of a return ticket, a half thereof which has already been so used. he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both : Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such punishment shall not be less than a fine of five hundred rupees. 7. 7. Bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of law, it would reveal that the dependents of a bona fide passenger whose death occurs in an accident arising out of the travelling in the railway train, would be entitled to receive compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Railways Act and Rules. 8. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in (Sundri v. Union of India)3, A.I.R. 1984 All. 277 wherein it was observed that the word, passenger has not been defined in Indian Railways Act, 1890 and held that; "On a consideration of the legislative history and the provisions of section 82-A, our view is that only the dependents of a bona fide passenger are entitled to get compensation in the event of death occurring in an accident. Section 82-A does not entitle the dependents of a trespasser to get benefit of the same. A trespasser does not occupy the status of a passenger. It is true that railways have a duty not to injure the trespassers wantonly or willfully but that does not entitle the heirs to get compensation under section 82-A". 9. The Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced on record and found that the deceased was travelling on the ticket of Mr. K.L. Rana whose name was appearing in the reservation chart and it was also found that Mr. K.L. Rana, Erection Engineer working in the same company, i.e. Venus Engineering Company and therefore, the Tribunal drew the presumption that the deceased was travelling on the ticket which was purchased by Venus Engineering Company for Mr. K.L. Rana and on this basis, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the railway train. This view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law because the wording in section 137(1) with intent to defraud would show that if anybody with intent to defraud a railway administration enters or remains in any carriage on a railway or travels in a train in contravention of section 55, his act would amount to an offence which shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. In the present case it is not possible to accept that the deceased was travelling in the train with intent to defraud the railway administration and in contravention of section 55. 10. In fact, the burden is on the railway administration to prove that the deceased was ticket less traveller or was not a bona fide passenger. In Rajkumari and another v. Union of India, 1994(1) T.A.C. 67, the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that; the scheme and the Act seen as a whole makes it evident that the entry into a railway carriage required of a person to obtain a ticket, pass or permission and in absence thereof, his action or omission is punishable with imprisonment or fine, including removal from the carriage. When a person is found dead as a result of accident in a railway carriage, in which he was travelling, a presumption may be drawn under section 114 of the Evidence Act keeping in view of the prohibition under section 68 of the Railway Act against boarding a train without ticket that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Since ticket less travel is an illegal act and exposes such traveller to penal action, the presumption is of innocence in favour of such one of the travellers or passengers in a train. It is for the railway administration to prove contrary and the burden in such circumstances that the deceased was a ticket less traveller or was not a bona fide passenger, should be on the railway administration which has special means of knowledge as to whether any ticket was issued to that deceased or whether at any point before or at the end of journey, he was checked and detected by staff or the railway as an unauthorised person without ticket, pass or permission". 11. In the present case the deceased had travelled the distance of about 884 kms. from Ahemadabad and then the railway train derailed and consequently Paljibhai died in that accident. The ex gratia payment was made to the dependents of Paljibhai on the basis of railway ticket which was issued and the name of K.L. Rana (A.W. 4) appeared in the reservation chart. from Ahemadabad and then the railway train derailed and consequently Paljibhai died in that accident. The ex gratia payment was made to the dependents of Paljibhai on the basis of railway ticket which was issued and the name of K.L. Rana (A.W. 4) appeared in the reservation chart. Hence, in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and moreover it is not the case of the railway administration that during the course of the journey his ticket was checked and the checking staff detected that the deceased was an unauthorised person without ticket, pass or permission. This Court is of the considered view that since the Act has been introduced by the legislature for the benefit of the victim of the railway accidents and keeping in view the scheme of the Act, it would be obvious that the railway administration has failed to discharge the burden to prove that the deceased was a ticket less traveller or was not a bona fide passenger or that he was the trespasser in the railway train on the date of the accident and therefore, it is quite obvious that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the application of widow of the deceased claiming compensation. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 12. Once the conclusion is reached that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, then it would fallow that the appellant would be entitled to receive the compensation. So far the quantum of compensation is concerned, there is no dispute that the rules were amended which are called the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1977 which came into force from 1-1-1977 and as per these Rules, the compensation payable for the death of a passenger would be Rs. 4 lakh in lump sum. The accident in the present case occurred on 9-7-1992 and therefore, the question arises as to whether the Rules can be made applicable retrospectively and in this context the learned Counsel for the appellant rightly relied on the decision in the case of Rathi Menon v. Union of India, 2001(I) A.C.C. 453(S.C.) wherein it has been observed in para Nos. 25, 26 and 27 as under: "The asinine consequence of accepting the interpretation placed by the Division Bench of the High Court can be demonstrated through an illustration. 25, 26 and 27 as under: "The asinine consequence of accepting the interpretation placed by the Division Bench of the High Court can be demonstrated through an illustration. If a person sustained injury as described in Rule 3(2) of the Rules, in an accident in a train on 31-10-1997, and another person sustains the same kind of injury in another accident in a train the next day i.e. 1-11-1997, when both persons made separate applications before the same Claims Tribunal for compensation, the Tribunal can award Rs. 2 lakhs only in the first case and Rs. 4 lakhs in the second case. What a woeful discrimination, if not a glaringly unfair differentiation. See the interval between the two accidents of identical features. It was only a few hours, but the difference in the compensation amount is enormously high. Any Court should avert an interpretation which would lead to such a manifestly absurd fallout, unless the Court is compelled otherwise by any mandatory provision. Why the Central Government decided to make such vast variation in the amount of compensation while exercising the powers conferred by section 129 of the Act. It cannot be conceived that the Government wanted to make a discrimination between those victims who suffered the accident prior to 1-11-1997 and those two suffered the identical injury in a similar accident on or a after that date. The raison dctrc for making such variation is easily discernible. The Central Government wanted to update the compensation amount. Rupee value is not an unchanging unit in the monitory system. Students of economic history know that currency value remained static before the Second World War. Bar the post World War II witnessed the new phenomenon of vast fluctuations in money value of currency notes in circulation in each nation. When the U.S. Dollar has registered a steep upward rise, currencies in may other countries made downward slip. What was the value of one hundred rupees twenty years ago is vastly different from what it is today. This substantial change has caused its impact on the cost of living also. The Central Government while changing the figure in the compensation amount after an interval of a decade was only influenced by the desire to update the money value of the compensation. This substantial change has caused its impact on the cost of living also. The Central Government while changing the figure in the compensation amount after an interval of a decade was only influenced by the desire to update the money value of the compensation. In other words, what you were to pay ten years ago to one person cannot be the same if it is paid today in the same figure of currency notes. It is for the purpose of meeting the reality that Central Government changed the figures." 13. In the present case the Tribunal has observed that the amount of compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs only could have been awarded as compensation, had the deceased been a bona fide passenger in the train. The Tribunal decided the application on 26-2-1993 and therefore, at that time there was no amendment in the Rules. But, since the amendment has been made in the Rules for updating the amount of compensation, no discrimination in the award by the quantum of compensation can be made in view of the aforesaid observations of the Honble Supreme Court, which are obviously binding on this Court. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is obvious that the appellant would be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs (Rupees four lakhs only) and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the respondent railway administration is directed to make the payment of compensation to the appellant-claimant, within a period of twelve weeks, in default, the said amount shall carry interest @ Rs. 6% per annum from the date of this order, till realisation. Appeal allowed. -----