Judgment : 1] This is an appeal challenging Judgment and Award dated 28/10/2009 delivered by Railway Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, Bench at Nagpur in Claim Application No. 102/OA-II/RCT/NGP/2006. 2] Facts are as under:-SuvarnaDnyandeo Sawant, a young girl, aged about 23 years was traveling on 18/2/2006 by a Train No. 350, Aurangabad to Hyderabad Passenger. While train was approaching Selu station, she was thrown out of the train due to rush and sudden jerk of the train. In the result, she died on the spot due to severe injuries. The appellant has denied the claim lodged by parents of Suvarna on the ground that Suvarna cannot be treated as bona fide passenger traveling on 18/2/2006. The Railway Claims Tribunal held in favour of the claimants that they are dependents of deceased Suvarna, who died as a result of an untoward incident as bona fide passenger in Train No. 350, Aurangabad to Hyderabad Passenger on 18/2/2006. Thus, compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-to the claimants, as directed, along with the interest by the Tribunal. 3] Railway administration by the present appeal challenged the validity and legality of the Award on the ground that Suvarna was not bona fide passenger and she was traveling without ticket. Appellant also denied that it was an untoward incident. 4] I have considered submission advanced at the bar and also perused record and proceedings. In support of the claim, evidence of father of victim was recorded. According to him, before Suvarna started traveling in the Train No. 350, he had received telephone call from her that she has purchased railway ticket and has started traveling. 5] Father of victim deposed that she was coming to Selu from Aurangabad by a Passenger Train after she had purchased ticket. The deposition reveals that deceased Suvarna had mobile phone communication with her father. According to father of victim, his daughter fell down from the running train between Satona and Selu stations, due to crowd of passengers in train and sudden jerk in the train. Though admittedly Shri Dnyandeo Sawant (father of victim) is not eyewitness to the incident, the fact that he had received telephonic message from his daughter is not countered by the Railway administration, except bare denial of the untoward incident by examining M. Jayarajan, who only stated that there was no entry of jerk to the train in his register. Though admittedly Shri Dnyandeo Sawant (father of victim) is not eyewitness to the incident, the fact that he had received telephonic message from his daughter is not countered by the Railway administration, except bare denial of the untoward incident by examining M. Jayarajan, who only stated that there was no entry of jerk to the train in his register. 6] Looking to the nature of material in the form of documents prepared by the police in respect of the untoward incident, such as - FIR, Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama and Postmortem Notes in respect of Suvarna’s dead body. The version of the Railway administration that there was no untoward incident, cannot be believed. Postmortem Notes also indicate multiple injuries, which resulted in death of Suvarna due to respiratory arrest as a result of head injury. 7] The material appears consistent with the version on behalf of claimants that Suvarna, while coming to Selu from Aurangabad met with untoward incident and she was thrown up from the running train. In such event, when a lady passenger was thrown off from running train due to crowd as well as sudden jerk, much importance cannot be given to the fact that from her dead body the passenger ticket was not recovered, as it may be thrown out and lost due to misfortune otherwise also. The railway administration do have employees to check ticketless travellers and prosecute them, immediately. 8] Railway administration which undertakes hazardous activity to carry passengers by a train from place to place have strict liability to compensate the railway passenger in case of any untoward incident happening by reason when passenger is traveling by the train. If any exception is pleaded, it is duty of the Railway administration to establish it by adducing evidence to prove such exception. In the absence of any such evidence adduced by the Railway administration, Section 124A of Railway’s Act, 1989 makes the railway administration strictly liable for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger as a result of an untoward incident occurring in the course of a travel by railway train, Railway administration is responsible for death of a passenger irrespective of its wrongful act, neglect or default on its part. 9] The definition of the word ‘Passenger’ is inclusive, which even includes a ‘Railway Servant on duty’. 9] The definition of the word ‘Passenger’ is inclusive, which even includes a ‘Railway Servant on duty’. Considering the legislative intention, unless exceptions available to the Railway administration are pleaded and established satisfactorily, it is liable to compensate any passenger from a train for fell down accidentally and untoward incident occurs. A Tribunal in the facts and circumstances rightly held that Railway administration is liable for to compensate for the untoward incident occurred. Hence, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned Judgment and Award. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER 1) Appeal is dismissed. 2) The amount deposited in this Court, which is not yet withdrawn, shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement according to law as it may deem it fit. 3) Record and Proceedings be sent back to Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench.