Judgment : A. Hariprasad, J. 1. Appellants’ daughter, Preetha, boarded Malabar Express (Train No.6330) on 14.10.2007 from Mangalore with a valid unreserved ticket to Chalakkudy station. The train halted at Chalakkudy railway station at 2.45 a.m. on 15.10.2007. The unreserved compartment was crowed with passengers and lot of persons were squatting near the door. While alighting from the train, Preetha tripped and fell down from the compartment to the railway track and the moving train ran over, killing her instantly. Appellants approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (for short, “the Tribunal”) with a petition for compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The respondent in its reply statement contended that the deceased did not get down when the train stopped at Chalakkudy. Later she rashly and negligently attempted to alight from the moving train. So, according to the respondent, the appellants are not entitled to get compensation. The application was dismissed by the Tribunal after trial. Hence this appeal. 2. On the side of the appellants, Exts.A1 to A15 were marked and 1st appellant testified as PW1. 3. Tribunal raised the following issues for determination: “1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger, as alleged? 2. Whether the deceased died due to an untoward incident, as defined U/s. 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act? 3. Whether the applicants are the only dependants of the deceased? 4. Whether the respondent is liable to pay compensation, if so, what amount? 5. Reliefs and costs?” 4. Tribunal found that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. It also found that the deceased did not die due to an untoward incident and therefore, the Railway Administration has no liability to pay compensation. Further the Tribunal decided that the appellants are not entitled to claim compensation on account of the fact that they are not the legal heirs or dependants of the deceased. All these findings are seriously challenged by the appellants. 5. We heard Sri. Rajit, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Varghese P.Thomas, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal committed grave mistakes in the areas of appreciation of evidence and application of law. Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides an appeal to the High Court from every order of the Tribunal, not being an interlocutory order. Varghese P.Thomas, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal committed grave mistakes in the areas of appreciation of evidence and application of law. Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides an appeal to the High Court from every order of the Tribunal, not being an interlocutory order. High Court, being the appellate forum with all powers of an appellate court, has co-extensive powers with the Claims Tribunals to dispose of the claims brought in appeal. In other words, High Court, as the appellate court, has the power to re-appreciate evidence and pass an order which is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case and which ought to have been passed by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record. This power of the High Court as appellate court has been considered and recognized by this Court in Vijayasankar v. Union of India (1995 (2) KLT 408). 7. Now, we shall examine the evidence to find out the correctness and legality of the order of the Tribunal. Ext.A3, dated 14.10.2007, is the journey ticket produced before the Tribunal to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. It was issued from Mangalore as starting point of journey and Chalakudy as the destination. As per Ext.A3, the train started at 17.03 hours on 14.10.2007. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the reasonings stated by the Tribunal for discarding Ext.A3 are flimsy and whimsical. Appellants contended that their house is at Poyya, which is a place near Chalakudy railway station. Tribunal placed undue reliance on the statements of witnesses recorded by Police at the time of preparing Ext.A8 inquest report. According to some of the witnesses, the deceased was expected to get down from the train at Thrissur. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal lost sight of the legal proposition that the statements of witnesses examined at the time of inquest cannot be treated as substantive evidence. This contention is indisputable. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the deceased was admittedly travelling in an unreserved compartment, which normally will be packed with passengers and that unreserved compartments, especially during night, will be thronged with passengers is a fact commonly known. This contention is indisputable. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the deceased was admittedly travelling in an unreserved compartment, which normally will be packed with passengers and that unreserved compartments, especially during night, will be thronged with passengers is a fact commonly known. So, a person sitting in the middle of the compartment will find it very difficult to find a way to reach upto the door. For the said reasons, it is contended by the appellants that merely because the deceased did not get down at Thrissur, it cannot be stated that she was not a bonafide passenger. It is true that Ext.A3 journey ticket was from Mangalore to Chalakudy. It is common knowledge that when a person is proceeding from Mangalore to Thiruvanathapuram direction, Thrissur railway station comes first and then comes Chalakudy railway station. Contention of the appellants that during the night rush-hour, journey in an unreserved compartment of a train is not a pleasant experience is a reality known to everyone from human experience. So, the deceased could not have alighted at Thrissur from the unreserved compartment due to crowding. It is a possibility which cannot be ruled out. Ext.A4 is the copy of the first information report. The informant has specifically mentioned in Ext.A4 that the victim was travelling from Mangalore to Chalakudy and she accidentally fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Reasoning adopted by the Tribunal that Ext.A3, the unreserved ticket, could have been procured by anyone is without any factual basis. None of the documents probabilise such a finding. Further, respondent has not adduced any evidence. So much so, the finding of the Tribunal that Ext.A3 journey ticket could have been purchased by anyone and it did not belong to the deceased is only to be regarded as unsustainable and therefore, to be discarded. Learned counsel for the appellants is right in contending that the Tribunal committed a grave mistake in findings that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. This finding deserves to be set aside. 8. Strong objection is raised by the appellants regarding the finding on issue No.2 that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident. To appreciate this contention, following provisions in the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”) will have to be considered. This finding deserves to be set aside. 8. Strong objection is raised by the appellants regarding the finding on issue No.2 that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident. To appreciate this contention, following provisions in the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”) will have to be considered. Section 123(c) of the Act defines the term “untoward incident” in the following words: “(c) “untoward incident” means- (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” A bare reading of the above quoted provision will make it clear that accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers will fall within the definition of “untoward incident”. The specific case of the appellants is that the deceased, while attempting to get down from the train at Chalakudy railway station, tripped and fell down between the train and platform and suddenly the moving train ran over her body causing instantaneous death. Hence, if the facts alleged in the application are established, then no one can dispute that the deceased died in an untoward incident. 9. Section 124 of the Act deals with the extent of liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation for death, personal injury, loss, destruction, damage, etc. 10. Section 124A of the Act is the specific provision dealing with compensation on account of untoward incidents. It will be profitable to extract the provision for easy understanding. It reads as follows: “124A. Section 124 of the Act deals with the extent of liability of the Railway Administration to pay compensation for death, personal injury, loss, destruction, damage, etc. 10. Section 124A of the Act is the specific provision dealing with compensation on account of untoward incidents. It will be profitable to extract the provision for easy understanding. It reads as follows: “124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.- When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident. Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to – (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “passenger” includes – (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.” 11. Section 124A of the Act shows that when in the course of working a railway, if an untoward incident occurs, which results in the death of a passenger, the Railway Administration will be liable to pay compensation to the dependants of such passenger to such extent as may be prescribed. As per the proviso to Section 124A of the Act, no compensation shall be payable under that Section by the Railway Administration, if the passenger dies or suffers injuries due to reasons mentioned therein. 12. As per the proviso to Section 124A of the Act, no compensation shall be payable under that Section by the Railway Administration, if the passenger dies or suffers injuries due to reasons mentioned therein. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased might have over-slept and therefore could not have alighted at Thrissur is made without any pinch of evidence. Observations made by the Tribunal that she might have over-slept and tried to get out of the moving train at Chalakudy railway station are based on mere conjectures and surmises, contended the learned counsel for the appellants. We have scanned through the evidence meticulously. We find no evidence to support the said reasoning of the Tribunal. It is not clear as to how the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the deceased might have deliberately jumped out of a moving train, which certainly is a dangerous act. All these reasonings are mere imaginations of the Tribunal, submitted the learned counsel for the appellants. It is true that none of the materials in the record would justify such a conclusion and hence we are constrained to hold that this finding is factually and legally unsustainable. 13. It is settled law that when there is an untoward incident, even when no negligence is proved on the part of the Railway Officers, the railway is liable to pay compensation as prescribed in the schedule. Liability of the Railway Administration is in the nature of a no fault liability. Wordings of Sections 124A and 123(c) of the Act clearly indicate that proof of negligence is alien to the matter of determining the liability of Railway Administration for paying compensation. Of course, the Railway Administration can extricate itself of the liability to pay compensation, if it establishes that the death or sufferance of injury was due to any of the matters mentioned in the proviso to Section 124A of the Act. This proposition has been settled in Joji C.John v. Union of India (2002 (1) KLT 678). Following excerption from the above decision will be advantageous: “When there is ‘untoward incident’ even when no negligence is proved on the part of Railway Officers, Railway is liable to pay compensation as prescribed in the schedule. See S.124A and 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as amended by Railways (Amendment) Act, 28 of 1994. Following excerption from the above decision will be advantageous: “When there is ‘untoward incident’ even when no negligence is proved on the part of Railway Officers, Railway is liable to pay compensation as prescribed in the schedule. See S.124A and 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as amended by Railways (Amendment) Act, 28 of 1994. Even if there is no negligence on the part of the Railway employees, it cannot be presumed that injuries caused to the victim of the accident are self inflicted injuries so as to deny compensation as provided under Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. In the above circumstances, the burden is on the Railway to prove that claimant is not a bonafide passenger.” 14. Supreme Court in Jameela v. Union of India (2010 (3) KLT 882) held that standing at open doors of a 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. It was also held therein that even if it is assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence, it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under Section 124A of the Act. 15. It is the definite case of the appellants that the deceased was travelling in an unreserved compartment on the fateful night. The Tribunal deduced from vacuum that anybody could have obtained an unreserved ticket to lay a claim. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that this is a wild imagination of the Tribunal, which adds insult to the inconsolable agony of the appellants. Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had occasion to consider and reject the contention of Railway Administration that a passenger travelling in an unreserved compartment, who was standing on the footboard, should be regarded as died in a self inflicted incident in Union of India v. Vidyawati & Others (AIR 2008 Allahabad 124). The ratio therein is as follows: “………. In case of unreserved compartments Railways are issuing tickets irrespective of accommodations in case of unreserved seats. Even at the time of return of tickets without journey, certain amounts are being deducted by the Railways. Therefore, Railways are duty bound to discharge the responsibilities. The ratio therein is as follows: “………. In case of unreserved compartments Railways are issuing tickets irrespective of accommodations in case of unreserved seats. Even at the time of return of tickets without journey, certain amounts are being deducted by the Railways. Therefore, Railways are duty bound to discharge the responsibilities. In such situation it does not lie on the mouth of the railways that as because the unreserved compartment was overloaded and the passenger, who was standing on the foot board, sustained death, it can be construed as self inflict incident. This submission cannot lie on the mouth of a public authority of a developed or developing country. This is also a disgraceful submission that the deceased could have board on the next train. …………..” We are in agreement with the above observations. The logical deduction is that the Railway Administration shall not be allowed to deny a rightful compensation claim on dry technicalities. It is, therefore, evident that the findings of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and she did not die in an untoward incident are clearly unsustainable either on facts or on legal considerations. Therefore, we set aside those findings. 16. Another reason stated by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of compensation is that the appellants are neither legal heirs nor dependants of the deceased. This finding is enigmatic and without any legal basis. Section 123 (b) of the Act defines the term “dependant” thus: “(b) “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:- (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.” If we carefully go through the above provision, following aspects will be revealed: if the deceased passenger left behind either wife or husband or son or daughter, the law in Section 123(b)(i) of the Act will presume that they are dependants of the deceased even without proving that they were fully or partly dependant on the deceased. Similarly, if the deceased passenger was an unmarried person or a minor, then his parent becomes a dependant by operation of the statute. In cases falling under Section 123(b)(ii) to (iv), it has to be shown that the relatives of the deceased passenger, mentioned therein, were dependants, either wholly or partly, on the deceased passenger. This is the essential difference between Section 123(b)(i) on one hand and Section 123(b)(ii) to (iv) of the Act on the other hand. Tribunal denied compensation to the appellants for the reason that the deceased being a female, her parents are not entitled to claim compensation. Appellants’ contention that the deceased was an unmarried girl has been fortified by oral as well as documentary evidence. Ext.A14 is the heirship certificate. It shows that the appellants are father and mother of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the proof affidavit too the appellants have specifically contended that the deceased was unmarried at the time of death. There is no contra evidence adduced by the respondents challenging this contention. It is true, the fact that the deceased was unmarried at the time of the untoward incident has not been specifically pleaded in the application. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no column to do so in the format prescribed for preferring a claim. However the respondent, neither in the pleading nor by adducing contra evidence disputed this case of the appellants. Therefore, it has to be found that the deceased was an unmarried passenger falling within Section 123 (b)(i) of the Act. Tribunal found that the parents of a deceased passenger can claim compensation under the above mentioned provision only if the deceased was an unmarried person or a minor of masculine gender. It is the finding of the Tribunal that Section 123(b)(i) of the Act specifies the parent as dependant only of an unmarried son and not of a daughter. The Tribunal gave thrust to ‘his parents’ occurring in the above mentioned provision and the Tribunal is of the view that ‘his parent’ cannot include ‘her parent’. This is a fundamental mistake committed by the Tribunal for unjustly denying the claim of appellants. The Tribunal gave thrust to ‘his parents’ occurring in the above mentioned provision and the Tribunal is of the view that ‘his parent’ cannot include ‘her parent’. This is a fundamental mistake committed by the Tribunal for unjustly denying the claim of appellants. Tribunal did not consider the implication of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which reads as follows: “Gender and number.- In all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (1) words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and (2) words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa.” There is nothing repugnant in the subject or context in Section 123 of the Act to show that ‘his parent’ does not take in ‘her parent’. In other words, in the matter of claiming compensation, there is no express or implied legislative intention discernible from the statute for excluding the parents of an unmarried female passenger. Sections 123 and 124A of the Act have many a times been interpreted by the Courts as a piece of beneficial legislation intended for rendering help and solace to deserving persons. The provision shall not be construed in such a narrow manner so as to defeat the legislative object. Finding of the Tribunal that appellants are not entitled to claim compensation as their unmarried daughter died in an untoward incident and not a son is beyond comprehension and also legally untenable. We set aside this finding. Tribunal thoroughly erred in dismissing the claim petition for flimsy and unsustainable reasons. We set aside the order of the Tribunal and allow the application. In the result. (i) Appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. (ii) Application for compensation is allowed. Respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) as per Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 to the appellants and each appellant shall be entitled to 50% of the compensation amount. Appellants are also entitled to get cost of the proceedings through out.