JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The Union of India represented through its General Manager, South-Eastern Railway has preferred this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Tribunals Act assailing the order dated 20.7.2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubanes¬war in Case No.OA/56/2001. By the said order the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000.00 (four lakhs) with interest thereon at the rate of 4% from the date of filing of the case and directed the amount to be paid within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the Railways would pay inter¬est at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount calcu¬lated from the date of filing of the case. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details the present respondent as applicant had filed the aforesaid case before the Tribunal for compensation with the averments that on 9.8.2001 he had purchased a ticket bearing number 69005 for travelling by Jatni-Palasa Passenger Train from Kaipadar Road Station. After the train halted at Kaipadar Road Station, he along with other passengers tried to board the same. At that juncture suddenly the train started to move to a jerk. Consequently the passengers who were entering into the compartment lost their balance and fell on each other. The respondent who was standing near the door fell down from the train. Due to such fall, both his hands came under a wheel of the train and he sustained severe bleeding injuries. He was immediately removed to the Khurda Road Railway Hospital, and thereafter to the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. Unfortunately in spite of best efforts of the doctors his hands could not be saved and both the hands were amputated. According to the respondent due to non-observance of safety rules the aforesaid accident took place and the Railway was responsible for that. 3. After receiving of the case from the Tribunal the appellant filed a written statement baldly denying the averments of the present respondent. It stated that the respondent was not a bona fide passenger in the train in question, nor was there any record in the Station Master’s Diary to indicate any accident alleged to have occurred on 9.8.2001 at Kaipadar Road Station. It stated that the respondent was not a bona fide passenger in the train in question, nor was there any record in the Station Master’s Diary to indicate any accident alleged to have occurred on 9.8.2001 at Kaipadar Road Station. It further pleaded that the accident, if any, did not come within the purview of untoward incident/accident and that the ticket alleged to have been purchased by the respondent had been pro¬cured just to claim compensation. 4. In consonance with the pleadings issues were framed by the Tribunal. To substantiate his claim the applicant filed his evidence through affidavit besides that of one Hrusikesh Mangaraj who was an eye-witness to the accident. The present appellant filed an affidavit of the Deputy Station Superintendent of Kaipa¬dar Road Station and got one Token Porter examined as a witness. In his evidence the eye-witness Hrusikesh Mangaraj who stated that he was a passenger in the train in question having boarded the same at Kaipadar Road Station a little earlier than the applicant and to have seen the accident. He also corroborated the averment of the applicant. He stated that the said train all of a sudden started moving and consequently the passengers lost their balance and the applicant fell down from the train and sustained bleeding injuries on his person. He stated to have shifted the applicant with the help of others to Khurda Road Railway Hospital for treatment and then to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. He was cross-examined on behalf of the present appellant in extenso, but then nothing could be elicited to discredit him. The Deputy Station Superintendent of Kaipadar Road Station in his affidavit stated that though his scheduled duty was from 8 hours to 16 hours, he had reported on duty at 9 hours on 9.8.2001. According to him he was travelling in Train No. 217 on that day from Khurda Road Station to Kaipadar Road Station but no untoward incident had occurred at Kaipadar Road Station that day. He admitted to have sold the ticket bearing number 69005, but then stated that he had sold the ticket between 10.30 hours to 10.40 hours. In cross-examination the said witness admitted that the aforesaid ticket had been sold at Kaipadar Road Station and that no material was produced to show that the said ticket had been sold at a particular time and for a particular train. In cross-examination the said witness admitted that the aforesaid ticket had been sold at Kaipadar Road Station and that no material was produced to show that the said ticket had been sold at a particular time and for a particular train. The Token Porter who was examined as a witness for the Railways on the other hand stated that he had seen the applicant being run over, but then by a Goods Train. He further stated that when the train started to move he suddenly came and tried to enter into the middle of the train. In short, according to him, the applicant was attempting to commit suicide. After discussing the evidence in extenso, the Tribunal, which consisted of two Members, disbelieved the evidence adduced on behalf of the Railways. By comparing the oral statements and the documents produced, the Tribunal held that the affidavits prima facie appeared to be false, inasmuch as though in para-3 of the affidavit Witness No.1 for the Railways stated that he had reported for duty at 9 hours on 9.8.2001, Entry No.525 of the Station Diary of the said date revealed that he had in fact reported for duty at 8 A.M. and observed that a person could make false statement, but not a document. However the Tribunal did not give much emphasis on the statement of the said witness. The Tribunal also observed that though no averment was made in the written statement that the applicant was trying to commit sui¬cide, such a case was sought to be introduced through the Token Porter and that the same could not be accepted. Holding that amputation came under Entry No.4 of Para III of the Schedule to the Compensation Rules and loss of all fingers except the thumb of the left hand came under Entry No.4; and assessing compensa¬tion for injury under Entry No.4 at Rs.2,40,000.00 and that for injury under Entry No.7 at Rs.2,00,000.00, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000.00 in favour of the applicant with interest as stated above. 5. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal, is assailed in this appeal mainly on the grounds that the Tribunal has not discussed the pleadings of the parties inter se and has acted illegally in disbelieving the evidence adduced on behalf of the Railways; and that the conclusions arrived at were based on surmises and conjectures. 5. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal, is assailed in this appeal mainly on the grounds that the Tribunal has not discussed the pleadings of the parties inter se and has acted illegally in disbelieving the evidence adduced on behalf of the Railways; and that the conclusions arrived at were based on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant were not properly appreciated and even though the Deputy Station Superintendent concerned clearly stated that he had issued the ticket in question himself, the Tribunal acted illegally in disbelieving the said statement. He further submitted that the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that even according to the appli¬cant himself he was travelling by standing on a foot rest of the train and as such the Railway was not liable to pay any compensa¬tion. He then submitted that the Tribunal did not frame any issue to decide the case and the conclusions arrived at cannot be sustained. 6. All the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant are strongly repudiated by the learned counsel for the respondent. He submitted that the applicant was a bona fide passenger possessing a valid ticket. He was in the process of getting into the train when without any warning all of a sudden the train started moving with a jerk for which the passen¬gers lost their balance and the applicant fell down from the train due to this jerk and the weight of the other passengers who piled upon him, and sustained the injuries as dealt with in detail earlier. The medical evidence reveals that immediately after, the accident the applicant was admitted in Khurda Road Hospital and thereafter in the SCB Medical-College Hospital. The written statement filed by the Railway was very vague without any specific denial of the averments of the claimant. The submission that no issue had been framed by the Tribunal is not correct. 7. Perusal of the records of the Tribunal reveals that the following five issues had been framed by the Tribunal : (1) Whether the respondents prove that the application is not maintainable ? (2) Whether the respondents prove that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger ? (3) Whether the respondents prove that the injury sustained by the applicant was due to his own negligence ? (2) Whether the respondents prove that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger ? (3) Whether the respondents prove that the injury sustained by the applicant was due to his own negligence ? (4) Whether the applicant proves that he suffered injuries as alleged in para No.1 of the application due to accident fall from the Jatni-Palasa passenger train on 09/08/2001 ? (5) What relief ?” 8. This Court heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. The railway ticket had been produced by the applicant before the Tribunal. No material was produced by the appellant indicating that the said ticket had not been issued at Kaipadar Road Station. On the other hand the witness examined on behalf of the Railway admitted that the ticket had in fact been issued at Kaipadar Road Station but at a subsequent time. The said fact has not been established by any cogent evidence. Thus this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the applicant was a bona fide passenger in the train in question. 9. Section 123 of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident” which includes “accidental falling” of any passenger from the train carrying passengers. As per Section 124-A of the said Act when in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway administra¬tion, such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger who was killed to recover damages in respect thereof, the Railway administration shall be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such “untoward incident”. It is thus clear that if a passenger sustains injury due to an untoward incident while travelling in a train he is entitled to claim compensation from the Railway, as has been held in the case of Union of India v. Smt. Murti Devi, reported in 2004 (1) TAC 507 (Delhi). 10. In the application claiming compensation, the injured is not required to strictly prove that the untoward incident had happened because of wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway administration. 10. In the application claiming compensation, the injured is not required to strictly prove that the untoward incident had happened because of wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway administration. In the case at hand, the applicant who was travelling in the train in question due to its sudden jerk slipped down from the train and was severely injured and both of his hands were ultimately amputated. Thus the only ground on which the Railway can escape or avoid its liability was that the injured had suffered because of his own criminal act. Such a fact was neither pleaded nor established. The plea that the applicant was travelling on the foot rest of a compartment and therefore the Railway is not liable to pay any compensation cannot be accepted. It is a matter of common knowledge that Railway tickets are issued from one station to other without verifying as to whether seats are available in the train or not for the passenger who has purchased the ticket. Railway has neither bothered nor even thought of as to whether a passenger purchasing ticket would have sufficient space, forget about a seat in the compartment. The tickets are issued at random without even bothering whether the passenger has to travel by boarding the .train at the roof top or hanging on the steps of the com¬partment. After issuing a ticket it would not be just for the Railway to take a stand that if the applicant was travelling on the foot step the Railway had no responsibility. Even otherwise, as would appear from the facts pleaded and the evidence adduced, the applicant was about to get into the compartment when the train suddenly started to move with a jerk without warning for which the passengers were imbalanced and the applicant fell down from the train. Considering the facts and circumstances from all angles, this Court is satisfied that the liability to pay compen¬sation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act is almost abso¬lute. Considering the facts and circumstances from all angles, this Court is satisfied that the liability to pay compen¬sation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act is almost abso¬lute. Once it is proved that an accident resulting in death or injury to a passenger has taken place, the neglect or default on the part of the Railway administration is immaterial and irrele¬vant, except of course in the cases of five exceptions morefully stipulated in the proviso, such as, (1) suicide or attempted suicide; (2) self-inflicted injury; (3) own criminal act; (4) any act committed in a state of intoxication or insanity; and (5) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. 11. It is needless to say that the present case is not covered under any of the above exceptions. Though some attempt is made by the Railway to show that the applicant was trying to commit suicide, the same cannot be accepted as the same is beyond its pleadings. Evidence on its behalf is also not trustworthy. 12. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the entire evi¬dence in detail. The conclusions arrived by it are just, proper and in consonance with law. The same need no interference by this Court. 13. However, considering the injuries sustained and the medical treatment of the applicant, this Court feels that an award of Rs.3,50,000.00 (three lakhs fifty thousand) instead of Rs.4,00,000.00 (four lakhs) with interest thereon at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case before the Tribunal till realization will serve the ends of justice, and orders accordingly. The FAO is disposed of with the aforesaid modification of the impugned order. FAO disposed of.