JUDGMENT M.M. Das, J. The General Manager, South Eastern Railway is the appellant in this appeal filed against the judgment and award dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar. The respondents-claimants filed the claim application claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for the death of one Bairagi Lenka, son of late Narayan Lenka in an untoward incident while travelling in a train as a passenger. The claim case registered as O.A. No. 12 of 2002 was once heard and decided by the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 22.2.2006 where the Tribunal refused to award any compensation in favour of the claimants. The claimants preferred an appeal before this Court. This Court passed an order of remand in the said appeal on 12.9.2008, setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal and remitting the matter back to it for considering the case afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. 2. The case of the claimants was that the deceased Bairagi Lenka, while travelling in Train No. 201 Howrah-Puri Passenger, from Bhubaneswar to Puri on 29.5.2001 as a passenger, was standing near the door. When the train reached near Matiapada before Puri Railway Station, due to jerking, he fell down from the train and was run over. As a consequence he died on the spot. Postmortem was conducted at the District Headquarters Hospital, Puri on the next day. GRP registered an U.D. Case being U.D. Case No. 24 of 2001 and enquired into the matter. The claimants are dependants of the deceased and the deceased was the only breadwinner of the family. The appellant-Railway resisted the claim, inter alia, stating that the application is not maintainable either in law or in fact. The deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he committed suicide. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. The Tribunal after remand of the case to it for being disposed of afresh, framed issues which arose out of the pleadings of the parties. After remand, none of the parties led any further oral or documentary evidence. However, both the parties were heard and filed their written arguments. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. The Tribunal after remand of the case to it for being disposed of afresh, framed issues which arose out of the pleadings of the parties. After remand, none of the parties led any further oral or documentary evidence. However, both the parties were heard and filed their written arguments. Appreciating the materials available on record and upon hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal, on the issues framed, found that the deceased died due to accidental fall from the running train. The appellant-Railway failed to prove that the deceased committed suicide and therefore, the claim as lodged does not come within the exception provided from (a) to (e) of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The deceased was a bonafide passenger in Train No. 201 Howrah-Puri Passenger on 29.5.2001 and the dependants-claimants of the deceased are entitled to maintain the action against the Railways on account of death of the deceased and they are entitled to get the compensation as per the schedule. Thus holding, the Tribunal directed the appellant, who was the respondent before it, to pay a compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. from 1.3.2002 within sixty days from the date of the said order failing which to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization and apportioned the awarded amount amongst the claimants. The Tribunal further directed to deposit certain amounts out of the awarded amount in fixed deposit accounts. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that since no new material was brought before the Tribunal after remand of the appeal to it by this Court, it was not open for the Tribunal to take a different view than that was taken by it earlier in its judgment which was impugned before this Court in the earlier appeal filed by the claimants. He further contended that previously the O.A. was decided by a Division Bench of the Tribunal and now the impugned award has been passed by a single Member of the Tribunal which he could not have done by differing with the earlier award of the Division Bench of the Tribunal. He also submitted that the Tribunal in the impugned award has misconstrued and mis-appreciated the evidence on record. He also submitted that the Tribunal in the impugned award has misconstrued and mis-appreciated the evidence on record. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that a bare reading of the pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal would go to show that the only defence taken by the Railways is that the deceased committed suicide and therefore, the case comes under the exceptions. There being no iota of evidence adduced by the appellant-Railways in support of such assertion, no illegality can be found with the impugned award. 5. On perusal of the evidence on record and juxtaposing it with the pleadings, it would be seen that a specific plea was raised by the appellant that the deceased committed suicide. With regard to the claim that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, it appears that an eye-witness has been examined on behalf of the claimants who have categorically stated that the deceased was a passenger in the train in question and the T.T. also checked his ticket. Such statement has not been controverted during cross-examination. The appellant has also adduced no evidence to prove that the deceased committed suicide. This Court in the earlier appeal (FAO No. 486 of 2006) while disposing of the said appeal on 12.9.2008 categorically stated that without going into the merit of the case one way or the other, the impugned award dated 22.2.2006 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. This Court also targeted the O.A. directing to dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order of remand. 6. As it is found that the earlier judgment of the Tribunal was set aside in FAO No. 486 of 2006, the contention raised by Mr. Mishra that the Tribunal in the impugned award could not have taken any different view than what was taken earlier by it cannot be accepted as this Court specifically directed to decide the O.A., afresh. That order of this Court, therefore, gave enough laxity to the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence on record by giving further opportunity of hearing to the parties. That order of this Court, therefore, gave enough laxity to the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence on record by giving further opportunity of hearing to the parties. Even if none of the parties adduced any further evidence after remand of the case, it was free for the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence as available on record and dispose of the case afresh as directed by this Court. On that count, therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned award. Further, the contention of Mr. Mishra that the earlier award was passed by two Members of the Tribunal and the present impugned award having been passed by a single Member, the single Member could not have taken a different view, is ex facie unsustainable as law of precedence cannot be made applicable to the Railway Claims Tribunal inasmuch as it cannot be said that the award passed by the two Members of the Tribunal carries more weight than an award passed by a single Member. Further more, the earlier award having been set aside by this Court in FAO No. 486 of 2006 with a specific direction to dispose of the O.A. afresh, this Court finds no error on the part of the Tribunal consisting of a single Member to take a different view of the matter by appreciating the materials available on record after hearing the parties afresh as per the remand order. 7. On facts also, as already discussed above, this Court finds that the Tribunal in the impugned award has correctly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties in concluding that the claimants are entitled to compensation. However, considering the pendency of the case from the year 2002 and the latter track record thereof, this Court feels it appropriate that the appellant should pay the amount of compensation as per the schedule i.e. Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakhs) to the respondents-claimants along with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. from 1.3.2002 till the date of realization and such amount of compensation along with interest @ 4% per annum should be deposited by the appellant before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks hence, failing which the appellant shall pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization. If the amount, as directed, is deposited, the other direction with regard to apportionment and keeping specific amounts in fixed deposit as per the impugned award shall be adhered to. 8. With the aforesaid modification with regard to the rate of interest in the impugned award, the FAO stands disposed of without cost.