Judgment Aravind Kumar, J. One Mr. Shahnawaz was said to have been travelling in Train bearing No.1014 as a bona fide passenger and on the fateful day viz., on 3.9.2003 he is said to have fallen down from a moving Train on account of heavy jerk and suffered multiple injuries and was shifted to Victoria Hospital for treatment and on account of the injuries sustained and medical treatment extended to said Shahnawaz did not save his life and ultimately, on 6.9.2003 he is said to have succumbed to injuries sustained in accident referred to above. 2. On account of death of said Shahnawaz his parents i.e., appellants herein filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation for death caused in train accident in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. On filing of complaint before Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, same came to be registered as O.A.No.6/2004 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench and notice was issued to respondent. Respondent filed a detailed Statement of objections contending that accident in question does not attract the definition of the word ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 and it was contended that claimants were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Having denied entire averments made in claim petition, respondent sought for dismissal of claim petition. 3. On the basis of the pleading of the parties. Tribunal framed following issues for its consideration. ISSUES: (i) Whether the applicant proves that the deceased Shahnawaz while travelling by Train No.1014 on 3.9.2003 fell down at Yelahanka station and succumbed to injuries on 6.9.03 in an untoward incident in terms of Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989? (ii) Whether the Respondent Railways proves that the deceased Shahnawaz was not bona fide passenger by the Train No.1014 on 3.9.2003 under Section 123(c)(2) or and under the proviso of 124A of Railways Act, 1989? (iii) Whether the applicants prove that they are the dependents of the deceased Shahnawaz? (iv) What relief? What order? 4. Claimants in support of their claim made in claim statement examined first claimant and produced Ex.A1 to A5. Respondent did not lead any oral evidence nor any documents were got marked. (iii) Whether the applicants prove that they are the dependents of the deceased Shahnawaz? (iv) What relief? What order? 4. Claimants in support of their claim made in claim statement examined first claimant and produced Ex.A1 to A5. Respondent did not lead any oral evidence nor any documents were got marked. On the basis of pleading and evidence of parties, Tribunal by its order dated 27.8.2007 dismissed claim petition filed by applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Tribunals Act, 1987. It is this judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench passed in O.A.No.6/2004, which is questioned, in present appeal. 5. Heard Sri R. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for appellants and Sri Raghupathy on behalf of Sri Ashok Haranahalli Associates. 6. Sri. R. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for appellants would contend that order of Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to exhibits produced by claimants. He would submit that Tribunal committed an error in not appreciating evidence of AW1 as also documents produced, which would reflect that deceased fell down from Train No.1014 near Yelahanka Railway Station “on account of sudden jerk’ that occurred in a moving train. He would also submit that finding of Tribunal that it was self-inflicted injury of deceased is not correct and said finding of Tribunal is contrary to record viz., inquest report, which is at Ex.A2. He would also submit that order of Tribunal viewed from any angle is contrary to records and prays for setting aside the order passed by Tribunal and remit the matter back to Tribunal for disposal on merits of claim. 7. Per contra, Sri Raghupathy learned Counsel appearing for respondent would support the order of Tribunal and submit that place of occurrence viz., where deceased is said to have fallen down is a place where there is no scheduled stop for train. Presuming that it is not “untoward incident’ but it is on account of “self-inflicted” act of deceased, which resulted in falling from train and as such Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation. He would further submit inquest report itself suggest that it is not on account of untoward incident and he prays for confirming the order passed by Tribunal and also prays for dismissal of appeal. He would further submit inquest report itself suggest that it is not on account of untoward incident and he prays for confirming the order passed by Tribunal and also prays for dismissal of appeal. He would also submit that burden is on claimants to prove that deceased was a bonafide passenger and had purchased a ticket for travelling in train and on account of non-production of material evidence, Tribunal was justified in dismissing claim petition. He would also submit that incident in question would not come within the definition of ‘accident’ or ‘untoward incident’ and as such Railway administration is not liable to pay any compensation and as such seeks for dismissal of appeal. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, following points arise for my consideration: (i) Whether judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A.No.6/2004 dated 27.08.2007 is required to be confirmed or reversed or modified? (ii) What order? 9. In order to appreciate rival contentions raised by learned Advocates appearing for parties, it would be necessary to extract relevant provision of the Railways Act, 1989 (Act 24 of 1989) ( hereinafter referred to as the Railways Act for the sake of brevity) viz., Section 123(a). 123(a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in Section 124. 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 of dacoity; or (iii) the indulging 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. 124. the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 124. Extent of liability.- When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passenger, 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 has suffered a loss 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 a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident. Explanation, -- For the purposes of this section “passenger” includes a railway servant on duty. 124A. 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 wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything combined 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-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 purpose of the 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. 10. In order to claim compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal accident in question should have occurred as enumerated under Section 123. The railway authorities would become liable to pay compensation to such accident as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss caused by death of a passenger dying as a result of such an accident and for personal injury and loss …… as a result of such accident. The main ingredient being the accident, the word ‘accident’ is defined under Section 123(a) referred to supra as also the word “untoward incident”. 11. In the instant case, claimants are claiming compensation on account of death of their son and are pressing into service Section 123 (c)(2) 12. Per contra, Railways are claiming that it is not an untoward incident, but it is self-inflicted injury as contemplated under Section 124(a) Proviso (b). In view of these rival contentions, it would be necessary to examine the contentions raised by claimants before Tribunal in claim petition and evidence tendered by claimants, which is to the following effect: That the petitioners No.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased Shahnawaz hereinafter called the deceased. The deceased was traveling Train No.1014 as a bona fide passenger. The deceased fell of from the train at Yelahanka Railway station, due to the huge jerk in the train. The deceased had suffered multiple injuries. The deceased was taken to Victoria Hospital for treatment and admitted as indoor patient. The duty doctors attended the deceased and offered all possible treatment to save the life of deceased. But the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 06.09.2003. 13. First claimant has been examined as AW1 and he has reiterated what has been stated in claim petition. In the cross-examination, it is suggested to said witnesses to the following effect: “It is incorrect to suggest that the deceased had not fallen from the train and while the deceased was crossing the railway track some other train had dashed against him. In the cross-examination, it is suggested to said witnesses to the following effect: “It is incorrect to suggest that the deceased had not fallen from the train and while the deceased was crossing the railway track some other train had dashed against him. The definite stand of the respondent before the Tribunal in its statement of objections was to the effect that the accident in question is ‘untoward incident’ as contemplated under Section 123 (c) (2) and it is not stated in this statement of objections that the accident that the accident is said to have occurred while the deceased was crossing the railway track and some other train dashed against him. On the other hand, statement in Para 4, it is to the following effect. “It is further submitted that the deceased might have fallen down to his own negligence and to his own criminal act and sustained self inflicted injuries for which railway administration is not liable to pay compensation and it does not attract the provisions of ‘untoward incident’. 14. Thus from the pleadings and evidence on record the noticeable fact that emerges is that respondent have been taking inconsistent plea as seen from statement of objections as well as cross-examination of AW.1 15. Section 123 (c) (2) as extracted hereinabove defines what is ‘untoward incident’, which also includes incidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 16. In the instant case, it is the contention of claimants i.e., parents of deceased that deceased Shahnawaz was that he was thrown out of moving train on account of sudden jerk. Even the corroborative evidence viz., inquest report, which came to be marked as Ex.A2, panchas have stated that accident in question is an untoward incident, which occurred on account of the sudden jerk of the train. This evidence viz., Ex.A2 is not disputed by the respondent but on the other hand they would rely upon the same to contend that it is a self inflicted injury but no material has been placed. There are no pleadings to said effect also. In regard, it would be of benefit to extract judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. There are no pleadings to said effect also. In regard, it would be of benefit to extract judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 wherein it has been held to the following effect: We are of the opinion that dealing legally make any difference where 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 since in either case it amounts to an “incidental falling of the passenger” from a train carrying passenger.” Hence it is an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. 17. The fact that Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation cannot be lost sight of by this Court and it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and purposeful construction of an enactment is one, which gives effect of legislative intent. Particularly when such beneficial legislation is called in question, it should receive a liberal interpretation and applying a strained interpretation would defeat the legislative purpose for which enactment is brought about. 18. Mr. Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, would contended that initial burden by claimants have not been discharged to demonstrate that deceased was travelling as a valid passenger by holding a valid ticket. Though this argument looks attractive, it cannot be accepted for simple and obvious reason that in a situation where a person who falls from train and suffers multiple injuries and is shifted to an hospital on an amergent basis cannot be expected to retain the ticket, which he would have purchased and to further expect the claimants who are none other than parents of deceased to establish this fact that in fact deceased had purchased the ticket. On the other hand, it is necessary to observe at this juncture that a person who is traveling in a train is deemed to have been purchased the ticket and is travelling as a valid passenger until and unless it is rebutted by respondent to show otherwise. In the absence of this fact, this Court cannot accept the arguments of learned Counsel appearing for respondent. In view of the above finding, order of Tribunal on issue Nos.1 and 2 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 19. In the absence of this fact, this Court cannot accept the arguments of learned Counsel appearing for respondent. In view of the above finding, order of Tribunal on issue Nos.1 and 2 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 19. Tribunal has given a finding on issue No.3 framed by it holding that applicants have proved that they are the dependants of Shahnawaz. A memo has been filed on 26.5.2010 before this Court by the learned Counsel for the appellant reporting the death of the first appellant enclosing there with the death certificate. In view of this the matter is remitted to the Railway Claims Tribunal for the purpose of awarding compensation after bringing the legal heirs of deceased Shahnawaz, if any, on record and thereafterwards award the compensation as required under Section 125 of the Railways Act read with Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. It is also made clear that in view of categorical finding given by this Court hereinabove question of re determining or reconsideration of the claim on merits would not arise. In view of the above following order is passed. ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 27.08.2007 passed in O.A.No.6/2004 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Railway Claims Tribunal for awarding compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Shahnawaz. In the event, applicant –claimants makes an application to bring other legal representatives of the deceased the Tribunal shall consider same on merits and in accordance with law and in the absence thereof to pass order in favour of the second claimant. (iii) No costs.