JUDGMENT Honble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—The present appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short the Act) against the judgment and order dated 18.12.1998 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. OA 9700057. The Tribunal had declined to grant any compensation to the appellant on the ground that the appellant has failed to lead cogent and trustworthy evidence to prove that he suffered injuries on account of untoward incident. 2. In brief, the facts as emerge from the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, are that the appellant is a Monthly Seasonal Ticket (in short MST) holder and was pursuing his studies in I.T.I., Barabanki. He is resident of Lucknow. The appellant possessed MST No. 1165969 to travel in second class. On 30.11.1996, the appellant had gone to Barabanki from Lucknow to attend his classes. In the evening of the fateful day i.e. 30.11.1996 he had boarded the train No. 5207 UP -Barauni-Amritsar Express after pursuing his studies. After boarding the train he has come to know that the compartment in which he has entered, is occupied by army personnel. The appellant made a request to army personnel that he be permitted to travel in the same compartment up to the next station because he was not aware that the compartment was reserved. However, it has been alleged by the appellant that he was thrown out by the army personnel and in consequence thereof he suffered grievous injuries and admitted to hospital. When the appellant was thrown out by the army personnel, both the legs were imputed just below the knee. On account of the consequential injuries caused by throwing out, his one leg was imputed just below the knee and the other leg from the juncture of toe and leg fingers. 3. The appellant filed a petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal the appellant has filed his own affidavit as well as the affidavit of P.W. 2 H.C. Sahu. On behalf of the respondent affidavit of Sri Pradeep Kumar, Chief Commecial Inspector the statements of appellant and GRP Constable have been filed. 2,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal the appellant has filed his own affidavit as well as the affidavit of P.W. 2 H.C. Sahu. On behalf of the respondent affidavit of Sri Pradeep Kumar, Chief Commecial Inspector the statements of appellant and GRP Constable have been filed. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, it was submitted by the appellant’s counsel that the appellant was not aware of the fact that the compartment was reserved for army personnel. Hence, he boarded the train to reach Lucknow where he permanently resides. However, the army personnel had forcibly pushed the appellant outside the train resulting in serious injuries permanently disabling the appellant for whole of his life. It has not been disputed by the respondent that the appellant was not possessed of MST and he was not authorised to board the train on 30.11.1996 to arrive his destination at Lucknow. On account of having possession of the MST, the appellant shall be deemed to be bonafide passenger and has right to board the train at Railway Station, Barabanki. 4. The Tribunal had disbelieved the appellant’s claim on the ground that H.C. Sahu failed to establish that he was an eye-witness and he had seen the action of army personnel. However, the Tribunal also relied upon the affidavit filed by the respondent and to proceed to record a finding that appellant has failed to establish the manner of the incident on the fateful day. The observation made by the Tribunal is reproduced as under : “But in spite of this what can be inferred is whether the manner in which incident is said to happen as spoken by these two persons is capable of being accepted as true versions as what transpired on that very day........lt is very clear that both the parties have not put forth the real thing that happened on the particular day....." Thus the Tribunal has disbelieved the statement made by both the sides and rejected the appellant’s claim. 5. We are of view that the Tribunal has failed to discharge its obligation by incorrectly considering and appreciating the evidence on record. It has not been disputed that the appellant is resident of Lucknow and it has also not been disputed that the appellant possessed MST and he was authorised to board the train in question. 5. We are of view that the Tribunal has failed to discharge its obligation by incorrectly considering and appreciating the evidence on record. It has not been disputed that the appellant is resident of Lucknow and it has also not been disputed that the appellant possessed MST and he was authorised to board the train in question. The pleading raised by the appellant to the effect that he was pursuing his studies in I.T.I. Barabanki has also not been disputed. It has also not been disputed that the appellant suffered injury at Barabanki and he was taken to hospital from Railway track by the GRP constable. The mitigating facts, circumstances and evidence on record amply proves that the appellant had gone to Barabanki to attend his classes and after boarding the train, under certain circumstances, he fell down resulting in serious injuries. The facts, circumstances and material evidence on the record point out that he suffered injuries in the incident in question after boarding the train. 6. The question cropped up whether the appellant was pushed out by the army personnel or not? The submission of the appellant has been disbelieved by the tribunal on the ground that this plea was raised by showing in the affidavit and it was not pleaded originally. Accordingly, a finding has been recorded that the incident in question cannot be treated as untoward incident under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 7. However, there appears no evidence on record and no finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that appellant had not boarded the train. Once a person boarded the train, then minor abrasion or discrepancy with regard to falling down from the train does not carry much weight. It is amply clear that the appellant had gone to Barabanki to attend I.T.I. classes. He was MST holder and he had right to board the train to arrive his destination at Lucknow. The respondent has also not come forward with a specific plea that army personnel were not travelling in the train on the fateful day in the compartment from where the appellant was pushed out from the train. In the absence of any specific denial by the respondent that army personnel were not travelling in the compartment in question and appellant being a bonafide passenger, then submission of the appellant seems to carry weight. In the absence of any specific denial by the respondent that army personnel were not travelling in the compartment in question and appellant being a bonafide passenger, then submission of the appellant seems to carry weight. There is one more reason to believe the appellants submission that the compartment in which the appellant boarded was occupied by the army personnel. In case, the reservation would have been indicated by placing some board or plaque outside the compartment which seems to have not been done, the appellant cannot be held to commit any mistake by boarding the train occupied by the army personnel. The affidavit filed by the appellant has not been categorically rebutted by the respondent with cogent evidence that the compartment in which the appellant had boarded, was occupied by army personnel. The affidavit filed by the appellant before the Tribunal should not have been disbelieved while deciding the controversy. In the absence of specific denial the submission of the appellant’s counsel that appellant entered into the compartment occupied by army personnel, does not seems to be incorrect. By filling an affidavit to narrate the manner of occurrence, the appellant claimant had not committed any illegality. 8. Learned counsel for the railways vehemently relied upon the exception provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. We are of view that neither there is any evidence on record nor attention of the Court has been invited to any evidence which may prove that the incident is covered by the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Neither the appellant has committed suicide nor attempted to commit suicide, nor he suffered self-inflicted injuries because of his own criminal act. It is also not a case that appellant was suffering from insanity or he was in intoxicated state of mind, or suffered from any other reason covered by proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Neither the appellant has committed suicide nor attempted to commit suicide, nor he suffered self-inflicted injuries because of his own criminal act. It is also not a case that appellant was suffering from insanity or he was in intoxicated state of mind, or suffered from any other reason covered by proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Section 124-A of the Railways Act is reproduced as under : “Section 124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.—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 administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, 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 : Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this Section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to— (a) suicide or attempted to suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident." Explanation.—For the purposes of this Section, "passenger” includes— (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.” 9. While deciding identical any controversy a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.) was a member in F.A.F.O. No. 100 of 2003, Smt. Akhtari v. Union of India through G.M.N.E.R., Gorakhpur had elaborately interpreted the provision contained in the Railways Act including 124-A of the Act. Relevant portions are reproduced as under : "18. Relevant portions are reproduced as under : "18. Section 124-A categorically provides that "whether or not, there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration", the injured or the dependent of a passenger who has been killed shall be entitled for damages in respect thereof. Accordingly, the passenger travelling on train shall be entitled for damages or compensation. In the event of accident or untoward incident, the presumption shall always be in favour of the passenger with regards to bonafide unless rebutted by the material and cogent evidence. In the present case, driver and guard in ordinary course cannot be the eye-witnesses to establish that the deceased was at fault. Moreover, keeping the provisions contained in Sections 50, 51, 57, 58, 59 of the Act, since the respondent has failed to discharge statutory obligation to regulate the passengers in the compartment of the train and because of necessity the deceased or the people are even in over crowded train generally used to travel in second class, their bona fide may not be doubted. 54. In the latest judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 777 (SC), Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, while interpreting the Section 123 of the Railways Act, the Honble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid proposition of law and held that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. It has further been held by Honble Supreme Court that it shall not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when he fell down or whether he was only trying to get into the train when he fell down. The falling down from train has been treated as untoward incident and Honble Supreme Court held that restrictive meaning should not be given to the accidental falling of a passenger from a train. Section 124-A of the Act had held to be case of strict liability or no fault liability in the event of accidents. The fault cannot be looked into. The Honble Supreme Court reiterated the principle enunciated in the case of M.C. Mehta (supra). Section 124-A of the Act had held to be case of strict liability or no fault liability in the event of accidents. The fault cannot be looked into. The Honble Supreme Court reiterated the principle enunciated in the case of M.C. Mehta (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others (supra) are reproduced hereunder : "10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an accidental failing of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. Hence, it is an untoward incident as defined in Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act. 11. No doubt it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers, the first being that it only applied when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred [vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 524 (Para 9); B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 193 (Para 12); Transport Corporation of India v. ESI Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc.] 12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation [vide Almbic Chemical Works Co. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation [vide Almbic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 647 (para 7); Jeewan Lal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11); Lalappa Lingappa and others v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13); S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom Distt. Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27 (para 12) etc.] 14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers includes accidents when a bonafide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression. 17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. 39. In India the landmark Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 has gone much further then Rylands v. Fletcher, (supra) in imposing strict liability. The Court observed "if the enterprise is permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads". The Court also observed that this strict liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (supra). The Court also observed that this strict liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (supra). Sri Manish Kumar learned counsel for the appellant has rightly relied upon the present case which seems to cover the present controversy." 61. We also reiterate that not only right to life but also right to quality and dignity of life are fundamental rights protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to life does not mean the mere animal existence. The inhibitions contained in Article 21 against its deprivation extends even to those faculties by which life is enjoyed, [vide AIR 1990 SC 605 , Kubic Darusz v. Union of India; AIR 1963 SC 1295 , Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.; AIR 1984 SC 802 , Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India; AIR 1978 SC 597 , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India; AIR 2000 SC 988 , Chairman, Railway Board and others v. Mrs. Chandrima Das and others; AIR 1991 SC 1902 , Banglore Medical Trust v. B.S. Mudappa; 2001 (6) SCC 496 , Hinch Lal Tewari v. Kamala Devi and AIR 2007 SC 1046 , Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and others]. While dealing with the matters relating to the right to life which are fundamental in nature and constitutionally protected, the authorities have got no right to act in arbitrary manner. Corollary to these rights, the rights to safety and security are also fundamental rights and it shall be incumbent upon the railways to provide all necessary safeguards for safety and security to its passenger." 10. ln view of law settled by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Akhtari (supra) we are of view that the defence taken by the respondent relying upon by the proviso 124-A of the Act is not applicable. It can be safely held that the appellant has suffered injuries because of untoward incident as per Section 124-A of the Act. 11. Needless to say that, in view of law settled (supra) heavy burden lies on railways to take necessary steps for the safety and security of the passengers entered into its premises like platform, waiting halls etc. or during the course of travelling in a train as passenger. 12. 11. Needless to say that, in view of law settled (supra) heavy burden lies on railways to take necessary steps for the safety and security of the passengers entered into its premises like platform, waiting halls etc. or during the course of travelling in a train as passenger. 12. Apart from above, we would also like to make observation in public interest. While travelling in the train, compartments are normally reserved for army personnel. As submitted by the appellants counsel, it is sometimes indicated by chalk (Khadia) and sometimes there is no mark of identification by railways indicating that the compartment is reserved for army personnel. It would be proper for railways to place some board or plaque outside the compartment at some conspicuous place showing the reservation for army personnel or for some other person, party or dignatory or authorities so that after taking notice of such reservation people may not enter into sucl, compartments. We hope and trust that the Chairman, Railway Board will take suitable steps to meet out this requirement to avoid any inconvenience to the public. 13. The appellant had filed the claim petition for claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000. Part-II to Schedule of Compensation Payable for Death and injuries of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 prescribes the extent of compensation which may be granted for loss of both feet is upto Rs. 4,00,000/-. However, since the appellant has claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-, while sitting in appeal, we are of view that appellant should be paid compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of petition before the Tribunal till the actual payment is made. However, it has been submitted by Sri Anil Srivastava that interest should be paid from the date of award but in view of the recent judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6898 of 2002 Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, 2008 (2) TAC 777, we are of view that appellant is entitled for interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of petition before the Tribunal. 14. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.12.1998 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. 14. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.12.1998 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The original application moved by the appellant is allowed awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the date of filing of petition before the Tribunal. Compensation be paid to the appellant within four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before the respondent. 15. Cost is made easy. 16. Copy of the judgment and order be sent to the Chairman, Railway Board forthwith by the registry to consider with regard to displaying the board/plaque in the reserved compartment and to take necessary steps as observed hereinabove. ————