Judgment : 1 The appeal is against the Judgment and order dated 03-11-2009 in claim case no 289 of 2005 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Mumbai whereby the claim application filed by the dependents of the deceased Anil Girdhar Thalkia was dismissed. 2. Facts briefly are:- Anil Girdhar Thalkia aged about 30 years and his wife Madhuri were travelling with their three month old child by Local Train from Borivali to Churchgate on 30-03-2001 as bonafide passengers. While the local train with usual rush of passengers was running between the stations of Goregaon and Jogeshwari, unfortunately Anil had fallen down accidentally from the train, injured and died on the spot. Valid second class railway ticket from Borivali to Churchgate was recovered from the body of Anil during the inquest Panchanama drawn by Railway police. 3. The Railway administration contested the claimv and disputed the liability to pay compensation on the ground that the deceased was knocked down by the Train and he was not bonafide passenger. 4. Heard submissions at the bar and perused evidence recorded in the case. 5. The evidence led consisted of Smt. Madhuri, widow of the deceased Anil clearly indicating that she along with her Husband and child were travelling from the Borivali station to Churchgate after buying second class return card tickets. The return tickets were kept by her Husband in his shift pocket. While Smt. Madhuri was traveling with her three month old daughter she was offered a seat by a sympathizer co- passenger. As it was crowded compartment while the train was running between the Goregaon and Jogeshwari stations, Anil fell down accidentally from the train. The train did not stop though she requested the co-passengers to pull the chain. It stopped at Jogeshwari Railway station. Smt Madhuri reported the untoward incident to the Jogeshwari Railway Police. Then Madhuri went with Railway Police to the spot by walking and saw dead boy of her Husband. According to her the station master had wrongly issued Memo on hearsay basis that Anil was knocked down by the train while crossing the railway track. Railway witness Jagdish Singh stated that he was informed by unknown person about unknown Male aged about 30 years knocked down by the train between Goregaon and Jogeshwari stations. He had not received Memo from the Motorman or Guard. Railway witness Jagdish Singh stated that he was informed by unknown person about unknown Male aged about 30 years knocked down by the train between Goregaon and Jogeshwari stations. He had not received Memo from the Motorman or Guard. Thus Railway Witness was not in position to depose the truth as to whether Anil was knocked down or fell down from the Train. Memo Ex A-5 therefore could not have been relied upon. Smt Madhuri was material eye witness who had traveled with her husband Anil from Borivali to Churchgate and saw him fell down from the running Train. Her direct version of the untoward fatal incident is corroborated by the fact that during the Inquest Panchanama two western Railway card tickets no. 60609 and 60610 from Borivali to Churchgate were recovered from the body of victim and the dead body was identified as that of Anil Girdhar Thalkia. Death Certificate dated 30-03-2001 indicated that the death was as result of head injury in case of Railway accident (Unnatural). Post Mortem also confirming the same. The interested hearsay version of Railway employees was clearly motivated to save Railway Administration from the liability to pay Compensation to the claimants. Version of the Railway Administration ought to have been discarded by the Tribunal. Pre-ponderence of probabilities were clearly in favour of the Claimant. The liability of the Railway administration is strict. It is answerable to explain and satisfactorily establish the facts pleaded to the contrary. The version of the Railway administration employee Jagdish Prasad is found evasive and interested to save the Railway administration from its liability to compensate the dependents of the victim Anil. There was no fact pleaded by way of any exception so as to believe that victim was rash and negligent in any manner so as to endanger his own safety or that he indulged into a criminal act within the meaning of Section 134 and 136 of the Indian Railways Act. 6. In Chapter XIII of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. 6. In Chapter XIII of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. The untoward incident is defined in Section 123(c)(2), which insofar as is relevant for the present case is as under - “123 (c) 'untoward incident' means - (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” Thus, accidental death of any passenger falling from the train is covered within the meaning of untoward incident and under Section 124 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, Railway is liable to pay compensation, which must be reasonable in accordance with law. Four lakhs for death by untoward incident of any bonafide passenger traveling by the Train in view of sub rule (2) of the Rule 1 of the Railway accidents and untoward incident (compensation) Amendment Rules which came in to force from1st day of November 1997. The Railway Accident (compensation ) Rules, 1989 which were issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 contained more or less similar provisions as in the Railways Accidents and untoward incidents(compensation) Rules, 1990. The later Rules are issued under Section 129 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Section 22 of the General Clauses Act (Act 10 of 1897), in supersession of earlier Rules of 1989 and came into force on 1-08-1994 . compensation for death as in the part 1 of the schedule under the 1989 Rules was only Rs 100,000/- which was enhanced to Rs 2,00,000/-under Rules of 1990. the Rules were further amended regarding the quantum of compensation to enhance it to Rs 4,00,000/- under the Railways Accident and Untoward Incidents (compensation) amendment Rules, 1997. More than 15 years have lapsed since the last amendment of the quantum of compensation. It is desirable this limit of compensation of four lakhs payable to the dependents of the victim of untoward incident need to be further amended reasonably considering relevance of the growth of inflation and diminished value of Rupees since last amendment was made in 1997, to enhance the quantum of compensation amount to make it reasonable, fair and equitable. Compensation is payable to the dependents of the victim of an untoward fatal incident for whose family he is lost forever as an earning member of the family. Compensation is payable to the dependents of the victim of an untoward fatal incident for whose family he is lost forever as an earning member of the family. If he was only earning member of the family the hardship is more acute when deceased had left minor children who need care and attention for their upbringing and education, because the compensation payable by the Railway administration under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 is liability to the prescribed extent only and not more. Under Section 124-A Railway administration is made liable for loss occasioned by an untoward incident occurring in the course of working of Railway. We hope that the Rule making authority concerned would do the needful in this regard to enhance the quantum of compensation reasonably considering the fact that when an unfortunate family lose their sole bread earner for ever the damage is pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, general as well as special. 7. Tragedy revealed in the present case is that on a fateful day, unfortunate family consisting of Young Husband aged 30 years along with wife and their child of three month started from their residence to travel from Borivali to churchgate by the local train to return home minus their sole bread earner, Anil Thalkia. He had taken valid railway card tickets for traveling from Borivali to Churchgate on a fateful day. Dependents of any bonafide Passenger of the train or even holder of valid platform ticket, upon entering in to Railway premises if such bonafide user becomes victim of an untoward fatal incident must be compensated, even assuming for the sake of argument that such user was knocked down by the train. In such cases the liability of the Railway administration is strict, irrespective of proof of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway administration. Railway Administration has undertaken hazardous occupation to carry passengers safely from place to place and it must have all security arrangements in order to carry bonafide passengers safely to their destination chosen (Churchgate in this case). In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Railway Tribunal clearly erred in law and facts to dismiss the claim of accidental death of Anil Thalkia due to untoward fatal incident. 8. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned judgment and order is indefensible, unsustainable and must be set aside. The appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Railway Tribunal clearly erred in law and facts to dismiss the claim of accidental death of Anil Thalkia due to untoward fatal incident. 8. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned judgment and order is indefensible, unsustainable and must be set aside. The appeal is allowed. The Railway administration is liable to pay compensation in the sum of Rs 4,00,000/- (Four lakhs) to the claimants with reasonable interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of the claim application till realization of the entire amount. The appeal is allowed accordingly with costs.