Judgment : The present first appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 23/01/2009 passed by learned Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Application No.41/OA-II/ RCT/NGP/2006 whereby total compensation in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded in favour of applicants-claimants payable by appellants herein. 2) Brief facts of the case are stated as under While Bhimrao Timaji Sonwane was travelling as bona fide passenger by Vidarbha Express on 30/09/2005 from Nashik to Gondia, he had met with an untoward incident as he fell down from the running train between Nandura to Jalamb Railway Station, as the victim was travelling in a general over crowded compartment. 3) According to the claimant-widow of victim Bhimrao, Bhimrao was working as Laboratory Attendant in Dhote Bandhu Science College, Gondia. He passed his B. A. Final Examination through Yashwantrao Chavan Mukta Vidyapeeth, Nashik and he had been to Nashik to collect his degree certificate. He had purchased railway ticket from Nashik Road to Gondia on fateful day i.e. 30/09/2005 when he boarded Vidarbha Express. The victim had fallen down from running train near Pole No.524/79 of Railway Station Nandura. The claimants on the ground that said Bhimrao was bona fide passenger travelling in the train claimed compensation for untoward incident. In view of Section 123(c) (2) and 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, the claimants had placed reliance upon the report of the incident known as 'Marg Khabri' (Exhibit-1), spot panchnama (Exhibit-2), Inquest panchnama (Exhibit-3), post-mortem report (Exhibit-4), railway ticket (Exhibit-5), death certificate (Exhibit-6), birth certificate of children Kanchan and Kunal (Exhibit-7), identity card (Exhibit-8) and ration card (Exhibit-9). The claimants contended that they were dependents upon deceased Bhimrao for their livelihood and suffered irreparable loss on account of his demise as a result of untoward incident. 4) Learned Tribunal after going through the documentary evidence on record as also rulings cited and the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the claimants were dependents on the deceased Bhimrao and while travelling as bona fide passenger by Vidarbha Express on 30/09/2005, he had met with an untoward incident. Thus, widow of said Bhimrao Smt.Chhayabai and her children Kanchan, aged about 14 years and Kunal, aged about 3 years were entitled for compensation. Thus, widow of said Bhimrao Smt.Chhayabai and her children Kanchan, aged about 14 years and Kunal, aged about 3 years were entitled for compensation. Learned Tribunal noted that odd hours in the night or early in the morning where most of the passengers are sleeping in the general compartment, which mostly overcrowded, the untoward incident had occurred in the intervening night of 30/09/2005 and 01/10/2005. The dead body of the deceased Bhimrao was found to the gangman on 02/10/2005 while patrolling on the railway track. The post-mortem report of the dead body mentioned probable cause of death due to hemorrhage because of head injury. Learned Tribunal also considered gangman's report to infer that death was due to accidental fall of the passenger from the train. Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. 5) Learned Advocate for the respondents made a reference to the ruling in Jameela and others v. Union of India , reported in 2010 ACJ 2453 . The Apex Court considered the relevant provisions under Section 123(c)(2) as also Section 124A of Indian Railways Act and liability of the Railways for death of passenger due to accident as provided in Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 was pleased to restore the award of compensation granted by the Tribunal on the ground that there was no case by the Railway Administration that death of the victim was a case of suicide or self inflicted injury or that victim died due to his own criminal act or when he was in a state of intoxication or insanity or he died due to natural cause or disease. In the absence of any specific defence by the Railway Administration and in the absence of proof of any exceptional fact, which may not be ignored, Railway Administration can not go away from its strict liability for payment of compensation, because the inference that can be raised is that victim met with accidental death due to falling down from the train. It is obligatory for the Railway Administration to plead exception as defence and to prove the same so as to claim exemption or exoneration from its strict liability to compensate the victim for any untoward incident. In the absence of any specific plea or contrary evidence of the claimants, Railway Administration cannot avoid its liability founded on Law of Torts. It is obligatory for the Railway Administration to plead exception as defence and to prove the same so as to claim exemption or exoneration from its strict liability to compensate the victim for any untoward incident. In the absence of any specific plea or contrary evidence of the claimants, Railway Administration cannot avoid its liability founded on Law of Torts. It cannot be disputed that Railway Administration undertook nationwide hazardous activity to carry the passengers from one place to another by means of train, therefore, when any passenger meets with an untoward incident due to accident which may or may not arise on account of negligence of Railway Administration or carelessness, nevertheless Railway Administration may be strictly held liable to pay compensation to victim. 6) Learned Advocate for the respondent also made reference to the ruling in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others v. Union of India and another , reported in 2009 ACJ 2444 . In that case passenger was robbed of his money in a train and during scuffle he was thrown out of the train by assailants resulting in his death, legal heirs of victim claimed compensation with interest. In respect of awarding of interest, power of Court to grant interest can be invoked under the provisions of Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 and Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code was considered by the Apex Court and interest was allowed at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of award and thereafter at 9% per annum till realization. 7) A reference is also made to the ruling in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others , reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 , which lay down principal of strict liability of Railway Administration for no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Thus, accidental falling of a passenger from train on a railway track or contributory negligence of the victim, strict liability would arise for Railway Administration to compensate. In para 10, it is observed thus – “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 falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers'. 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 falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers'. Hence, it is an 'untoward incident' as defined in Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act.” It is further observed in paras – 39 and 40 thus – “39. In India the landmark Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 ACJ 386 (SC), has gone much further than Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330, 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). 40. The decision in M.C.Mehta's case, 1987 ACJ 386 (SC), related to a concern working for private profit. However, in our opinion the same principle will also apply to statutory authorities (like the Railways), public corporations or local bodies which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit.” 8) A reference is also made to the ruling in Rathi Menon v. Union of India , reported in 2001 ACJ 721 . The Apex Court considering the socio economic object of the legislation and rulings on the subject decided to order the Railway Administration to pay the amount of award as payable in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for death or personal injury claims. The Apex Court considering the socio economic object of the legislation and rulings on the subject decided to order the Railway Administration to pay the amount of award as payable in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for death or personal injury claims. 9) Thus, considering the aforesaid rulings as also strict liability imposed against Railway Administration for untoward incidents, or accidental falling down of a bona fide passenger, the impugned judgment and award was based upon oral as well as documentary evidence which led to only logical conclusion that for accidental fall of victim Bhimrao Sonwane, Railway Administration was answerable and liable to compensate the claimants as directed by learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The contention that claim was not maintainable in law or that deceased was not a bona fide passenger is unbelievable in the facts and circumstances of the case. That being so, the appeal is without merit. No fault is found with the reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal. 10) Hence, the first appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 11) The amount deposited by the appellant during pendency of this appeal be transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur for disbursement as directed by it to the claimants.