Judgment : 1] The appeal is against Judgment and Award dated 13/7/2010 delivered by learned Judicial Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, whereby the Tribunal awarded sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of order till realization. 2] The facts are as under:-Amrut s/o Rajappa Kothiwale (deceased) along with his friend Ganpat Marode on or about 25/9/2008 at early morning had been to Mudkhed for purchasing wheat. They have also gone to Umri to purchase wheat. Thereafter they returned to Mudkhed Station, purchased ticket for Amrut Kothiwale from Mudkhed to Umri and then he had boarded Train No. 7040, which is Nanded to Kacheguda Train. While traveling between Mudkhed and Umri, due to rush and sudden jerk, Amrut had fell down from the train and sustained multiple injuries on his body and died on the spot, as a result of that untoward incident. 3] The Tribunal upon the evidence led by the parties and after perusal of material on record including documents prepared and furnished by police in the form of FIR, Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama, Postmortem Notes Report of the accident etc. held that claimants were dependents of deceased Amrut Rajappa Kothiwale, who died as a result of an untoward incident while traveling as bona fide passenger on 25/9/2008 by a Train No. 7040 Nanded to Kacheguda Train. Thus, sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- were awarded in favour of the claimants. 4] Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted by challenging the impugned Judgment and Award that the incident occurred as a result of self-inflicted injury incurred by deceased Amrut, as he had jumped in front of the engine of the train and died as a result and, therefore, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous, perverse and liable to be quashed and set-aside. According to learned Advocate for the appellant, body of the deceased Amrut was cut into two pieces and lying in the mid section. Therefore, the version that he was bona fide passenger of Train No. 7040 ought to have been disbelieved by the Tribunal. He, therefore, prayed that impugned Judgment and Award be quashed and set-aside, in view of the evidence led on behalf of the Railway administration. Therefore, the version that he was bona fide passenger of Train No. 7040 ought to have been disbelieved by the Tribunal. He, therefore, prayed that impugned Judgment and Award be quashed and set-aside, in view of the evidence led on behalf of the Railway administration. 5] On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondents contended that it was not a case of self-inflicted injury nor any criminal act on the part of Amrut Kothiwale, but he was traveling as a bona fide passenger in Train No. 7040, which is Nanded to Kacheguda train and due to heavy rush in the compartment and sudden jerk, he had fallen down from the train and died, as a result of untoward incident. Learned Advocate for the respondents has relied upon documentary evidence placed on record as also oral evidence in this behalf. 6] Deposition of Godawaribai Amrut Kothiwale (Claimant) on affidavit disclosed that on 25/9/2008 Amrut had gone with his friend Ganpat Sonba Marode to purchase wheat at Mudkhed. As they did not get it at reasonable price, they went to Umri and on the same day they came back to Mudkhed Station. After railway ticket was purchased for Rs.17/- from Mudkhed to Umri, Amrut had boarded the Train No. 7040, which is Nanded to Kacheguda from Mudkhed Station. While traveling in the train, due to heavy rush in the compartment, he was standing in passage of the compartment. Due to sudden jerk, he was thrown off and fell down from the running train. In the process, he run over by the train at K.M.390/600 to 390/650 near to Umri Station. The affidavit had also disclosed that it was a death due to hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries and due to cutting of the body. Reference was also made to Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama, medical opinion as to the cause of death and other documentary evidence including accident’s report, FIR and other documents. Claimant Godawaribai was cross examined on her affidavit and stuck to her version that her husband Amrut went for purchase wheat and rice and traveling by Express Train from Mudkhed to Umri, he felled, died as a result of untoward incident. As he was cut into two pieces, then run over by the train after he fell down. She denied suggestion that her husband was dashed by the train while crossing the railway line. As he was cut into two pieces, then run over by the train after he fell down. She denied suggestion that her husband was dashed by the train while crossing the railway line. 7] Ganpat Marode (friend of deceased Amrut) also sworn an affidavit to disclose that he along with his friend Amrut had gone to Mudkhed to purchase wheat on 25/9/2008. They have reached in Mudkhed Market and searched about purchasing of wheat, but they did not find wheat at affordable price. So, they decided to return to Umri. Ganpat Marode told Amrut to go to Umri and then they both have gone to Mudkhed Railway Station. According to Ganpat Marode, he had purchased the Railway Journey Ticket for Rs. 17/- from Mudkhed to Umri and gave it to deceased Amrut. Later he came to know about accidental death of Amrut. Evidence of Ganpat was also subjected to cross-examination. He admitted that he was not accompanying Amrut when alleged incident occurred, but he maintained that he had purchased railway ticket of Rs. 17/- for Amrut at Mudkhed Railway Station and Amrut had boarded in general boggie of Nanded to Kacheguda Express. 8] To counter this evidence, railway administration had examined Tulshiram Ratan Chauhan, Gateman, Manopad Station, who deposed that while he was standing at the gate for exchanging of signal at 15.50 hours on 25/9/2008, Train No. 7040 had passed. He admitted that he did not notice any person while crossing the railway track before arrival of the train. After departure of the train, he came to know that one person was run over by the train. 9] Another witness Vijendrasingh Meena, Assistant Station Master was also examined by Railway administration, who gave negative evidence that loco pilot or guard of train No. 7040 did not inform him about any passenger felling down from the said train. While he admitted that Gateman Tulshiram had informed him about the death of one person on the track, but according to him, he had jumped in front of the engine of the train. He admitted in cross-examination that loco pilot or guard did not inform him about suicide committed by any person in front of the engine of the train. He had issued the memo and message to the Controller. He admitted in cross-examination that loco pilot or guard did not inform him about suicide committed by any person in front of the engine of the train. He had issued the memo and message to the Controller. 10] After considering this evidence and ruling in Rathi Menon V/s Union of India, reported in 2001 ACJ 721, in which case, a lady passenger was thrown off a running train as a consequence of sudden jerk while she was washing her face at wash basin situated next to the door of the compartment. The compensation was awarded as a result of final order passed by Apex Court, after the Apex Court considered Section 123 (c) (2) as well as section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989. Reference is also made to ruling in Jameela and others V/s Union of India, reported in 2010 ACJ 2453 by learned Advocate for the respondents to argue that accidental fall of a passenger from train is actionable as an untoward incident, even in the absence of any eye-witness to the incident. The Apex Court observed that even if the deceased fell down from the train due to his own negligence, it is not a criminal act so as to attract clause (c) of proviso to section 124-A of Railways Act. Thus, order of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was restored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, after considering the nature of liability of railway administration for the death of passenger due to accident. Learned Advocate for respondents also made reference to ruling in Union of India V/s Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 to argue that the claimants are entitled for benefit of social welfare legislation. 11] Thus, according to learned Advocate for the respondents, when death occurs as a result of accidental falling of a passenger from a train, Railway administration is liable to compensate the claimants/dependents of the deceased. Regarding exceptions mentioned in the proviso contained in section 124-A of the Railways Act, it is submitted that the facts must be specifically pleaded to claim benefit of exceptions from liability to compensate the claimants/dependents. It is contended that the railway administration has strict liability in case of untoward incident as railway undertake hazardous activity to carry passengers from one place to another which may constitute likelihood of danger to any person using the train. It is contended that the railway administration has strict liability in case of untoward incident as railway undertake hazardous activity to carry passengers from one place to another which may constitute likelihood of danger to any person using the train. Therefore, one who undertake such hazardous activity has to compensate, if any, damage occurs irrespective of fault on its part. Furthermore, Railway administration is a public body. It is for benefit of the community functioning in a welfare state. Hence it is made liable statutorily to compensate for death or injury to a person, who may be victim of an untoward incident. While using train for journey. 12] In the ruling of Raj Kumari and another V/s Union of India, reported in 1993 ACJ 846 , Division Bench of this Court emphasized that burden lie upon the railway administration to plead and prove exceptional facts, if it wants to avoid its liability. Because in such cases, for claimants, it may be impossible to prove that deceased had valid ticket, pass or permission from the railway authorities, when he was traveling. In Raj Kumari’s case, the court had considered section 68 of Railways Act along with section 114 of the Evidence Act and held that to prove that deceased was a ticketless traveller and was not a bona fide passenger, is a fact which should be proved by railway administration, which has special means of knowledge as to whether any ticket was issued to the deceased or whether at any point before or at the end of journey, he was checked and detected by staff of the railway as an unauthorized person without valid ticket, pass or permission. The Tribunal has to start with presumption that deceased was a bona fide passenger, who lost his life in the railway accident. Thus, in Raj Kumari’s case, appeal was allowed and compensation was awarded. 13] The principle that presumption ought to be drawn in favour of victim was also considered in the ruling of Godisela Rajamma and others V/s Union of India, reported in 2002 (3) T.A.C. 183 (A.P.) . Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the definition “Untoward Incident” and held that presumption is in favour of the deceased that he was traveling with a valid ticket for journey, till contrary is proved by railway administration. Thus, in the absence of contrary evidence, railway administration is liable to pay statutory compensation. Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the definition “Untoward Incident” and held that presumption is in favour of the deceased that he was traveling with a valid ticket for journey, till contrary is proved by railway administration. Thus, in the absence of contrary evidence, railway administration is liable to pay statutory compensation. In Union of India V/s Hari Narayan Gupta and another, reported in 2008 ACJ 822 , it was held that the fact that deceased was not a bona fide passenger ought to be proved by railway administration. In other words, if railway failed to adduce evidence to discharge the burden, it is liable to pay compensation for untoward incident. 14] Thus, perusal of these rulings would indicate that it is obligatory for railway administration to lead evidence to prove that the deceased died because of suicide or attempt to commit suicide or as a result of self-inflicted injuries or because of his own criminal act or that death had occurred as a result of natural or medical or surgical reason. Thus, if railway failed to plead and establish any exception, it cannot avoid a liability to pay compensation to the claimant/dependent for untoward incident causing death of a person who was traveling by a train and died as a result of any untoward accident. Reliance is also placed upon ruling in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others V/s Union of India, reported in 2009 ACJ 2444 to argue that reasonable amount of interest is payable upon the amount of compensation which was allowed at the rate of 6.5 percent per annum from the date of application till the date of award and thereafter at 9% per annum till realization of the amount. 15] Thus, having perused the rulings in respect of strict liability of railway administration to pay compensation to the claimants/dependents of the deceased together with reasonable interest thereon, who traveled by a train and met with an accident as a result of untoward incident, I do not find any scope for interference with the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER 1) Appeal is dismissed. 2) The amount deposited by the appellant in this Court, which is not yet withdrawn, shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement according to law as it may deem fit. 3) Record and Proceedings be sent back to Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench.