Judgment : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an appeal against judgment and order dated 18th August 2009 delivered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Claim application no. 123/OA-II/RCT/NGP/2006 directing appellant Railway to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. 2. Facts, briefly stated, are thus On 29.5.2006, Shri Upendrasingh, son of respondents no 1 and 2 was traveling as bonafide passenger from Gorakhpur to Kurla, by GorakhpurL. T. Nagar express train no.1016. He had purchased railway ticket no. 4657437 for general compartment of said Express train. While traveling due to heavy jerks and heavy rush he felled down from running train near Hirapur Railway Station. As a result he received severe injuries and died .Railway Police , Chalisgaon had investigated the untoward incident vide A.D. case no 23/2006 and handed over the dead body of the deceased to the respondents after the post mortem was held over the dead body. 3. Railways administration had denied the untoward incident and the fact that the deceased Upendrasingh was a bonafide passenger. According to the Railways the deceased was traveling on the foot board and due to slip he fell down from the train. 4. The Tribunal had relied upon the oral evidence of Ramayansingh, Father of the victim Upendrasingh. The evidence indicated that the claimants were dependent upon their Son. And the fact that the deceased Upendrasingh, due to sudden jerk and pushed by the heavy rush fell down from the train near Cabin Pole No. 320/24 near Hirapur Railway Station. Ramayansingh is not an eye witness, but he was informed by Pawan, a co-passenger friend of his Son Upendrasingh, about the falling down of Upendrasingh from the door of the compartment of the train train due to sudden jerk. The Tribunal had satisfied itself about the fact that the deceased Upendrasingh was a bonafide passenger holding a Railway ticket. Memo of the Station Master, Chalisgaon (Ex A/30), Inquest held over the dead body, spot Panchanama about the place of the incident and the injuries noted over the dead body. Railway ticket was found with the deceased. The evidence led on behalf of the Railway administration also indicated clearly that Upendrasingh had fell down between Hirapur and Nyayadongari Railway station. Memo of the Station Master, Chalisgaon (Ex A/30), Inquest held over the dead body, spot Panchanama about the place of the incident and the injuries noted over the dead body. Railway ticket was found with the deceased. The evidence led on behalf of the Railway administration also indicated clearly that Upendrasingh had fell down between Hirapur and Nyayadongari Railway station. Thereafter two young persons Ramvinod and Pawankumar had reported to the station master, Hirapur Railway station and informed about their friend Upendrasingh felling down from the train no. 1016.Thus the evidence did indicated that the deceased Upendrasingh had fell down from the running train, sustained severe injuries and died in an untoward incident. Another contention on behalf of the appellants is that the ticket produced by the respondents’ claimant is fake. But the Railway did not bother to lead any evidence to buttress this allegation. The fact that there was alarm pulling soon after falling of Upendrasingh and Station Master of Hirapur was immediately informed about the incident of the accident would prove that the untoward accidental death was of a bonafide passenger traveling by the train Gorakhpur – LT Nagar Express. In my opinion accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers is an untoward incident Section 124A Railways Act provides that when an application is made by a dependent of a passenger who has been killed in the course of an untoward incident, it is not necessary for such dependent to prove any wrongful act, negligence or default on the part of the railway administration. The other condition for grant of compensation on account of untoward incident is that the person killed must be a passenger i. e. a person who is either a railway servant on duty or a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling by a train carrying passengers or one who has taken platform ticket. There are five exceptions carved out by proviso to section 124A. Obviously, clauses (a), (c), (d) and (e), which were neither pleaded nor proved in the present case. The appellant Railway administration having undertaken the hazardous occupation to carry passengers from place to place have strict liability to compensate the claimant dependents when any bonafide passenger met with untoward incident irrespective of the want of proof as to railways negligence. 5. Obviously, clauses (a), (c), (d) and (e), which were neither pleaded nor proved in the present case. The appellant Railway administration having undertaken the hazardous occupation to carry passengers from place to place have strict liability to compensate the claimant dependents when any bonafide passenger met with untoward incident irrespective of the want of proof as to railways negligence. 5. Learned Tribunal held in favour of present respondents-claimants and granted compensation, in the sum of Rs 4 Lac. The Tribunal directed that amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- be paid to each claimant by crossed cheque and remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each be kept in fixed deposit for five years and held claimant entitled to receive quarterly interest on the FDR. 6. Learned counsel for appellant Railway argued that it has not been established on record that Son of respondents died due to the untoward incident and contended that it was case of self-inflicted injury and squarely covered by proviso (b) to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that the Son of respondents suffered injury due to his own negligence as he was traveling on foot board near the door of the train trying to alight from a running train. He argued that a passenger traveling on foot board near a door of the compartment on a general ticket should not be shown any sympathy. 7. Learned counsel opposed arguments advanced on behalf of appellant. He contended that judgment of the Tribunal is based on documentary and oral evidence on record. He relied on ruling in case of Union of India V/s Prabhakaran Vijay and Ors. reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 in support of his contention. 8. I have perused evidence led on record before the Tribunal. I have also perused the ruling in Prabhakaran Vijay’s case, it was claimed by the Railways that since the passenger was trying to get into the train and fell down, it was not liable to pay compensation. The Apex Court held in paragraph 10 as under: "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. The Apex Court held in paragraph 10 as under: "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." Learned Advocate for the respondent claimant relied upon the ruling in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi V/s Union of India, reported in 2009 ACJ 2444 (SC) Reference is made to the ruling in Jameela and others Vs Union of India reported in 2010 ACJ 5453 (SC) to argue that the accidental falling of a passenger from the running train is actionable for the claim of ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 123 © (2) of the Railways Act It was observed by the Apex Court thus:-“7. It is not denied by the Railway that M. Hafeez fell down from the train and died while traveling on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a ‘passenger’ for the purpose of section 124A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under section 124A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. But the proviso to the section says that the railway administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). 8. Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railway that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental. 9. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental. 9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124 A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.” 9. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the submission of learned counsel for appellant that there was no fault on the part of Railways or that there was negligence on the part of Son of respondents, is based on a total misconception and hence has to be rejected. In the light of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Prabhakaran's case (supra), whether it was in her (victim’s) anxiety to alight the reserved compartment in order to board the general compartment or whether it was due to push given by someone that she fell down was considered as ‘untoward incident’. In the case in hand Son of respondents fell down from the running train, in either case, Upendrasingh, Son of respondents came within the expression “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. 10. Regarding the payment of interest which the claimants are entitled on the sum of the compensation payable learned Advocate for the respondent placed reliance upon the ruling in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi & others V/s Union of India and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 2444 . Apex Court in the case of Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others Vs. 10. Regarding the payment of interest which the claimants are entitled on the sum of the compensation payable learned Advocate for the respondent placed reliance upon the ruling in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi & others V/s Union of India and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 2444 . Apex Court in the case of Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2009 ACJ 2444 , was dealing with a claim under Section 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and they negatived the contention that no interest was payable and held that court has power to grant interest by invoking provisions of Interest Act and Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the judgment before the Apex Court, interest has been granted by the tribunal itself. In the circumstances, the Apex Court upheld grant of interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of award and 9% from the date of the award till the date of making of actual payment. In the case in hand the Tribunal has already granted the reasonable interest @ 7% p. a. on the compensation amount of Rs. 4 Lacs, from the date of the claim till the realization thereof, which I must uphold. 11. In the result, there is no substance in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.