ORDER This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.2.2013 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in connection with Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2009/0038, OLD No. OA (IIU)-9038/09, date of incident 13.10.2008 and date of filing 6.4.2009, whereby the claim application filed by the appellants stood dismissed. 2. The brief fact is that on 13.10.2008, deceased Anubhav Kumar Singh with his parents and cousin sister boarded in train No. 8625 UP Saharsa-Patna-Hatia Express at Saharsa station for going to Koderma. The ticket was issued for four persons and the deceased was among them. When the train reached at Mokama Junction, Anubhav Kumar Singh alighted from the train to purchase some eatables and drinking water. At Mokama station, large numbers of passengers boarded and due to which compartment was crowded. Anubhav Kumar Singh boarded in the train again, but he could not able to reach his seat due to heavy rush of the passengers in the compartment and he was compelled to stand at the gate of the compartment. The passengers were jostling with one another for getting space. When the train reached near Mor station due to sudden jerk and heavy rush in the compartment, Anubhav Kumar Singh lost his grip and fell down from the running train at Mokama station and sustained injury. He was removed to Sadar Hospital, Barh and from there to PMCH, Patna, but could not survive and succumbed to his injury on 13.10.2008 itself. 3. The appellants filed a petition for grant of compensation from railway in lieu of death of their son Anubhav Kumar Singh, but the learned Tribunal has refused to grant compensation on whimsical ground and hence this appeal. 4. It is contended that claim of the appellants was refused only on the ground that deceased himself was negligent and the incident will come under exception to the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The parents were also negligent by allowing a boy aged about 16 years to get down from train to purchase eatable and drinking water and they did not care of him while traveling in a train. It is vehemently argued that it is no ground to refuse the claim when other facts are admitted and accepted by the tribunal. 5. The counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments. 6. It is vehemently argued that it is no ground to refuse the claim when other facts are admitted and accepted by the tribunal. 5. The counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgment from which it appears that the deceased was a bona fide passengers is not in dispute. He fell down from a running train at Mokama railway station due to heavy rush in the compartment. In the circumstances, stated above, the finding of the learned tribunal cannot be sustained that the accident come under the exception to proviso to Section 124A and the finding is rejected. The other issues have been decided in favour of the appellants and therefore I feel inclined to allow this appeal and the impugned judgment/ award stands set aside and accordingly the respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4 Lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of the claim application to the claimants.