Judgment : 1. The appellant challenges the judgment and award dated 24.9.2004, passed by the learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in Claim Application No.13/0A-II/RCT/NGP/2003, whereby the claim application was dismissed by the learned Member of the Tribunal. 2. Appellant - Shri Ravichand, aged about 26-years, student by occupation, resident of Itwari, Nagpur, was travelling by Howrah-Ahmedabad Express Train No.8034 from Gondia to Nagpur, on 7.7.2002. It is the case of the appellant that there was a crowd in the compartment in which he was travelling and, therefore, he was standing near the door of the train. All of a sudden, there was a strong/forceful push from inside the compartment and he fell down therefrom and lost both of his legs which were amputed due to the untoward incident. The injured claimant was shifted to the Mayo Hospital, Nagpur. It is the case of the claimant that he had purchased ticket No.10474185 on 7.7.2002. 3. The Railway Administration had disputed its liability on the ground that the victim claimant was negligent and he was standing near the door of the train. It is not in dispute that the claimant was a bona fide passenger on the date of untoward incident. The facts on record revealed that the claimant along with his friend was a bona fide passenger. This was also pleaded in the claim application. The record indicates that except giving suggestion to deny the liability, no material was elicited from the claimant to indicate that there was no crowd in the compartment, in which the claimant was travelling or to indicate that the claimant was negligent in standing near the door of the compartment. Under these circumstances, the claimant cannot be blamed for standing near door when compartment is crowded. The victim/claimant was standing near the door of the compartment, which was crowded and he was bona fide passenger. Under these circumstances, the claimant cannot be blamed for standing near door when compartment is crowded. The victim/claimant was standing near the door of the compartment, which was crowded and he was bona fide passenger. The Tribunal observed in paragraph No.8, thus: “From the said scheme of law it is crystal clear that each compartment of every description of carriage the Railway Administration has fixed the maximum number of passengers which may be carried by it and that the numbers so fixed are exhibited in a conspicuous manner inside or outside, but, inspite of that the Applicant did not bother to observe the same and made his entry in the compartment knowing well that there was heavy rush.” Thus, the Tribunal without any basis in evidence led tried to fix the liability upon the victim claimant himself for travelling by the train in question. The ground reality in this regard cannot be ignored that many passengers to whom the valid tickets are issued by the Railway Administration, due to the limited numbers of train, are compelled to travell even in crowded compartments. Unless the Railway Administration prevented any passenger from entering into the compartment at the starting station itself, it cannot disown its liability to pay the compensation, which is statutorily fixed in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. When seat is not available in the crowded compartment, passenger may be required to stand in the passages of the compartment. Railway must prevent this at starting station if it wants to disown liability on this count. Under such circumstances, if due to jerks caused, as a result of sudden application of breaks by driver of the train or for the reason that due to heavy rush of the people in the compartment, there may be a mishap which can result into untoward incident within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989 which covers an accidental falling of any passengers. Therefore, the claim is maintainable by passenger claimant for the injury caused due to accidental falling from the train. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that if Railyway Administration wants to escape from liability to pay statutory compensation in this case in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, it ought to have pleaded exception provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that if Railyway Administration wants to escape from liability to pay statutory compensation in this case in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, it ought to have pleaded exception provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The material must be elicited from the witnesses concerned to bring the case within exception provided for under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. It is true that if the passenger commits any criminal act or travel in a state of intoxication or attempted to suicide or responsible for self inflicted injury, Railway Administration in an exceptional case, where exception is pleaded and proved, can escape from liability to pay statutory compensation. In the present case, no such exception was pleaded or proved so as to exonerate the railway from payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, payable in facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India wants to rely upon the evidence of Prakash Thakur, Senior Assistant Station Master, Itwari Railway Station, who gave evidence before the Tribunal regarding receipt of memo of the accident in question. Shri Thakur deposed that he received memo from the Guard Shri Deo stating that one person tried to get down and fell down from the bogie. It is also contended that since the claimant was resident of Itwari, he must have tried to get down at Itwari Station and met with an accident. However, the evidence of Shri Thakur cannot be considered as reliable particularly when Shri Deo is from the Railway and is interested witness who is uncorroborated. It was obligatory on the part of the Railway Administration to lead best available evidence of the guard, who gave report that the person tried to get down and fell down from the bogie. The defence, therefore, for want of reliable and acceptable evidence in this respect appears to be baseless particularly when had it been a case that the victim claimant tried to get down at Itwari Railway Station, without any scheduled stop, such a person could have been prosecuted but in fact he was not prosecuted. If that being so, the benefit of exception under Section 124A of the Railways Act cannot be given to the Railway Administration. 6. If that being so, the benefit of exception under Section 124A of the Railways Act cannot be given to the Railway Administration. 6. The claimant in the present case has lost his both legs due to the untoward incident and as a result, amputation occurred. The compensation in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-is provided in Schedule with reference to Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. For double amputation through leg or thigh on one side and loss of other foot, compensation is provided in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Section 124-A prescribes the compensation to the prescribed limited extent only as given in the Schedule. Hence, the Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation, payable in the present case, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence led in the present case. Hence, for the reasons stated above, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and award is set aside. The claim application is allowed. The Railway Administration is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellant claimant along with interest at the rate of 9% (Nine Percent) per annum from the date of claim petition.