Judgment : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, by the applicants in O.A.A.No.85 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, assailing the order dated 8-1-2008, whereby and whereunder the claim made by them claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the death of their son Manoj Kumar Shekhawat in an untoward incident happened on 27-6-2001 ended in dismissal. 2. Background facts in a nutsell leading to filing of this C.M.A. by the applicants in O.A.A.No.85 of 2002 are: (a) The appellants herein are applicants in O.A.A.No.85 of 2002. They filed the application in O.A.A.No.85 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act r/w. Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the death of their son Manoj Kumar Shekhawat, aged 18 years, in an untoward incident happened on 27-6-2001 near Ramarajupalli R.S. while travelling by Train No.2628 New Delhi – Bangalore Karnataka Express. The 1st applicant is the father and the 2nd applicant is the mother of Manoj Kumar Shekhawat. Manoj Kumar Shekhawat was travelling by Train No.2628 New Delhi – Bangalore Karnataka Express, on the night of 25-6-2001 in Sleeper Coach No.S12, berth No.20, holding Journey-cum-reservation Ticket No.78911613 from New Delhi to Bangalore. While travelling, he slipped and fell down accidentally from the said running train on 27-6-2001 and thereupon, he came into contact with a signal pole in the yard of Ramarajpalli RS at KM 254/10 and sustained severe multiple injuries and met with instantaneous death. Applicant No.1 received a telegram on 29-6-2001 at 7.50 p.m. from Railway P.S., Gooty. He reached Bangalore on 30-6-2001 and made enquiries with the concerned railway authorities about the death of his son Manoj Kumar Shekhawat. He identified the deadbody by seeing clothes, shoes, identity card and journey-cum-reservation ticket as that of his son. By the time he reached Gooty, deadbody of his son had been buried by the railway police. The applicants presented claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the death of their son Manoj Kumar Shekhawat. (b) The respondent-Railways filed written statement resisting the claim of the applicants. By the time he reached Gooty, deadbody of his son had been buried by the railway police. The applicants presented claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs for the death of their son Manoj Kumar Shekhawat. (b) The respondent-Railways filed written statement resisting the claim of the applicants. The main plea of the respondent-Railways is that the death of the deceased was due to his own criminal act, which absolves the Railway administration from paying any compensation. (c) The learned Tribunal formulated the following issues for consideration: (1) Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased Manoj Kumar Shekawat. (2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train No.2628 New Delhi – Bangalore Karnataka Express travelling from New Delhi to Bangalore on 25-6-2001? (3) Whether the deceased died on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train? (4) To what relief? (d) On behalf of the applicants, one witness was examined as A.W.1 and nine documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the respondent-Railways, two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and three documents were marked as Exs.R-1, C-1, C-1/10. (e) The Tribunal, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, held issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the applicants and issue Nos.3 and 4 against the applicants and thereby dismissed the claim petition filed by them, by order dated 8-1-2008. Hence, this CMA. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants/applicants and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Railways. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/applicants submits that the reasoning given by the Tribunal that the death of the deceased was due to his own criminal act is unsustainable. He would further submit 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. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (1) 2008 (6) SCJ 209 = 2009 (3) ALT 12. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (1) 2008 (6) SCJ 209 = 2009 (3) ALT 12. 2 (DN SC). 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Railways contends that the Tribunal considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was due to his own criminal act and not due to accidental fall from the train in an untoward incident and since the said finding is based on sound reasoning, it does not require interference by this Court. Learned Standing Counsel refers the evidence of R.W.2 to substantiate his contention. 6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the death of the deceased was due to his own criminal act, which absolves the Railways from paying the compensation? 7. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, reads as hereunder: "S.124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incident. – 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 suicide by him; (b) self-inflected 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. 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. 8. 'Untoward incident' has been defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as hereunder: "S.123(c) "untoward incident" means – (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the including in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers". 9. A plain reading of the above referred definition of untoward incident includes an accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died while travelling in a train bearing No.2628 New Delhi – Bangalore Karnataka Express under a valid journey-cum-reservation Ticket No.78911613. The only issue is whether the fall of the deceased from the train was due to his own criminal act. The Tribunal heavily relied on the evidence of R.W.2 and Ex.A-5 inquest report. Admittedly, no eyewitness was examined during the inquest. The conclusions drawn by the investigating officer during the inquest are based on certain observations made by him. The prominent observation being the blood traces on a signal pole. Basing on the blood traces on the signal pole, the investigating officer came to the conclusion that the deceased learned out of the compartment and thereby he came into contact with the signal pole and received serious injuries resulting his instantaneous death R.W.2 is the investigating officer. He admits in the cross-examination that there is possibility of the deceased getting into contact with the signal pole while falling from the train. He admits in the cross-examination that there is possibility of the deceased getting into contact with the signal pole while falling from the train. For better appreciation, I may refer the cross-examination of R.W.2 in his own words, which reads as hereunder: "I am not eye witness to the incident. After receipt of the message from SS/Gooty only I went to the spot. I did not examine any eye witness during the panchanama. There is a possibility that at the time of falling from the train due to the speed hit by post. But in this case I have come to conclusion that in the final report, that he has fallen down due to the hit of the post". By reading the contents of the inquest report, which has been exhibited as Ex.A-5, and the evidence of R.W.2, the two views are possible. Firstly, the deceased may have slipped from the compartment and came into contact with the signal pole resulting injuries which caused his instantaneous death. Secondly, the deceased may have learned out of the compartment and thereby came into the contact with the signal pole causing injuries which ultimately led to his instantaneous death. When the two views are possible, basing on the evidence, the view, which is favourable to the applicants, is to be adopted, since the object of the Act is to alleviate the sufferings of the victims or dependants of the victims of untoward incident. The death of the deceased came within the expression of 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' which is an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. The Supreme Court in the above referred decision held that since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Para 11 of the cited judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: "11. The Supreme Court in the above referred decision held that since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Para 11 of the cited judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: "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 applies 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 [ (2003) 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". By applying the above proposition of law, laid down by the Supreme Court in the cited judgment, to the facts of the present case, the view which is favourable to the appellants is to be taken into consideration, in which case the appellants/applicants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs as claimed by them. 10. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is allowed setting aside the order dated 8-1-2008 passed in O.A.A.No.85 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, and consequently, the appellants/applicants are awarded compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the date of payment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/applicants in equal shares. There shall be no order as to costs.