Order Heard the parties. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 12.10.2012, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in the Case No. OA (IIU)/ RNC/ 2009/ 0087 [Old No. OA (IIU) – 9087/09], whereby and whereunder the application for grant of compensation filed by the appellant/ claimant has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts behind filing of claim application is that on 3.6.2009 Smt. Chandri Devi boarded on 2381 Up Purva Express for going to Koderma from Howara. When the train was approaching KQR, she came at the gate of the compartment to get down, but due to heavy rush inside the compartment and jostling amongst the passengers in the compartment, she fell down from running train near Sharmatand Railway Station. She sustained serious injuries and died at the spot. 4. The appellant Shri Bhuneshwar Saw who happens to be husband of the deceased filed claim application before the authority concerned, adduced evidence and also produced the journey ticket. The learned Tribunal, after perusing the pleadings framed the following issues on 7.2.2012:- 1. Was the deceased a bona fide passenger by the train, as alleged? 2. Was there an untoward incident- involving the deceased envisaged under Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 as alleged? 3. Whether the applicant is the only dependent of the deceased as alleged as per Section 123(b)(i) to (iv) of the Railways Act 1989? 4. Whether the applicant is entitled to any compensation as per Section 123(b) of the Railway Act, 1989, and if so, the quantum for each and interest claimed, if any? 5. To what other relief, if any?" After adjudication the claim application was dismissed and hence this appeal. 5. It is argued that findings of learned Tribunal under Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 2 are incorrect. As a mater of fact the husband (appellant) had purchased valid ticket for his wife (deceased) and the ticket so purchased was from Howrah to Chakand. Later she changed her programme and decided to go to Kanjhiyadih, her native village. The learned tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased was not having valid ticket because ticket purchased by the appellant was for Howrah to Chakand. Later she changed her programme and decided to go to Kanjhiyadih, her native village. The learned tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased was not having valid ticket because ticket purchased by the appellant was for Howrah to Chakand. It is pointed out that railway station Koderma is falling before Chakand and the deceased had right to get down at any previous station of her choice and there is no impediment, if she wanted to break her journey at Koderma. Therefore the finding of learned Tribunal in this regard that she was not having valid ticket, is incorrect and hence, same is liable to be quashed. The Issue No. 2 which the learned Tribunal has decided in favour of the respondent is that the deceased herself was trying to get down and in course of that she was careless, fell down and caught under the wheels as a result she sustained injury and died at the spot. It is further submitted that the finding of learned Tribunal with regard to Issue No. 2 that the injury inflicted does not come under the purview of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, rather the incident will fall under exceptions specified under proviso to Section 124A(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 is also incorrect and is liable to be set aside. In this context, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments reported in 2008(2) T.A.C. 777 (S.C.) [Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others] ; 2007(4) T.A.C. 879 (All.) [Union of India Vs. Mohd. Amir Khan] and 2001(2) T.A.C. 501 (AP) [Union of India Vs. Uggina Srinivasa Rao]. In that view of the matter the impugned judgment is highly erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside and the claimant/ appellant is entitled to compensation under Schedule under Rule 3 Part I of the Railway Accidents & Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules 1990. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and submitted that the ticket produced by the appellant was not valid and it was not issued for the destination to which the deceased was traveling. Furthermore, the Railways is not responsible for the injuries caused to the deceased and it could be considered as self inflicted and therefore the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application. Furthermore, the Railways is not responsible for the injuries caused to the deceased and it could be considered as self inflicted and therefore the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application. The learned Tribunal has rightly held while deciding issue No. 2 that due to "CAUTION" the train at Sharmatanr station got slow and a lady wanted to get down from the running train which is apparent from ext. R-4 the diary extract at S. No. 1 of Sharmatanr station. The deceased died due to her negligence and the incident therefore does not come under the expression of untoward accident in terms of Section 123 of Railways Act 1989, rather the incident will fall under expression exceptions specified in proviso to Section 124A(b) of Railways Act. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgment and other materials placed before me and the judgments cited above. It is needless to say that the ticket which was produced by the appellant was for the longer destination i.e. from Howrah to Chakand and the railway station Koderma was in between. The specific evidence adduced by the witnesses is that before commencing her journey, the deceased had decided to get down at Koderma and the station on which she wanted to stop her journey was covered by the ticket which she was having. There is no impediment if any passenger having ticket for longer destination wants to get down at any previous station in order to break his/her journey or for any other purpose. In that circumstances it could not be said that the passenger was not having valid ticket. In this view of the matter, the finding of the learned Tribunal decided under Issue No. 1 is set aside and it is hereby held that the deceased was having valid ticket for traveling in that particular train. So far as second issue is concerned, their Lordships in the Judgment reported in 2008(2) T.A.C. 777 (S.C.), have held in paragraphs 10, 11 and 55 as under:- “10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. Hence, it is an 'untoward incident' as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. 11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 524 (Para 9), B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd. (2002) 1 S.C.C. 193 (Para 12), Transport Corporation of India v. E.S.I. Corporation, (2000) 1 S.C.C. 332 etc. 15. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant there was no fault on the part of the Railways, or that there was contributory negligence, is based on a total misconception and hence has to be rejected.” 8. Considering the view given by the Hon'ble Apex Court I have left no option but to hold that the injuries due to which the deceased died, don't come under the definition of self inflicted injuries, rather it was an accident which had taken place due to traveling in train. The deceased fell down at the time she was trying to get down due to jostling of the passengers. In the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I feel inclined to allow this appeal and accordingly the appellant is directed to be paid Rs. The deceased fell down at the time she was trying to get down due to jostling of the passengers. In the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I feel inclined to allow this appeal and accordingly the appellant is directed to be paid Rs. 4 Lakhs as compensation against death of late Chandri Devi and the amount of compensation shall be paid with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the application. Appeal allowed.