ORDER : 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22nd July, 2013 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in connection with Case No. OA(IIu)/RNC/ 2010/0096, by which application filed for compensation has been dismissed. 2. The fact, in brief, is that Md. Shakir boarded Train No. 1448, Shaktipunj Express at Howrah for going to Renukut, but due to Jharkhand Bandh, called by Maoists, route of the train was diverted and it was going through Dehri-on-sone. While the train was passing through Dehri-on-sone, due to rush and intense jostling in the train, Md. Shakir fell down from the running train, as a result he sustained injuries and died at the spot. The claimant happens to be mother of the deceased. Copies of journey ticket, first information report lodged as UD Case, inquest report, postmortem report, final report and identity card of the deceased had been placed before the Tribunal. 3. The Respondent-Railway denied the fact that Md. Shakir died due to an untoward incident, which comes within the purview of Section 124A of the Railways Act. As per final report submitted by the police, the deceased was coming nearer to the gate to get down from the train and due to his negligence he fell down in course of getting down from the running train. 4. Learned Tribunal has framed issues to decide the claim lodged by the appellant. Issue No. 1 has been decided in favour of the claimant that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, but Issue Nos.2 and 3 have been decided against the claimant on the ground that the occurrences does not come under any of the category of untoward incident, defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and he died due to his own negligent act. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, (2008) 9 SCC 527 , has submitted that the contention of the appellant that the deceased died in course of travelling in the train is admitted. In Paras 10, 11 and 14 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (mentioned supra), it has been observed as under:- "10. In Paras 10, 11 and 14 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (mentioned supra), it has been observed 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. 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 above mentioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524 ; B.D. Shetty vs. Ceat Limited, (2002) 1 SCC 193 and Transport Corporation of India vs. ESI Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332 . 14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression." 6. Since the facts and circumstances of the case appearing in the case at hand are fully covered with the judgment, referred to above, I feel inclined to allow this appeal. 7. Accordingly, findings of the learned Tribunal given on Issue Nos. 2 and 3 stand set aside. The respondent is directed to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 4.00 lacs as indicated under Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The claimant shall also be entitled to receive interest @ 9% per annum on awarded compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim application till the final payment. 8. This appeal stands allowed.