ORDER : Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. 1. By order dated 27th July, 2016, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (for short "the Tribunal"), accepted and allowed the Original Application of the claimants/respondents and accorded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs along with 6% interest from the date of its registration i.e. 29th January, 2013, until the date of award, and thereafter, 9% interest will be payable on the amount of compensation; of which the appellant/Union of India is aggrieved of. 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material facts are that the claimants/respondents instituted an original application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 125 of the Railway Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989"), stating therein that Raj Singh (deceased), was travelling from Ahmadabad to Delhi on 9th November, 2012, with a valid journey ticket number 11578740. It is pleaded case of the claimants that due to accidental fall from the coach of the train on Railway Track Number 578/4-5 because of a sudden jerk by the train; Raj Singh fell down and died at the spot. In support of the claim for compensation, the claimants/respondents placed on record the copy of the railway journey ticket, certified copy of the police report, certified copy of the panchnama, certified copy of the site plan, postmortem report, inquiry report, extract of daily diary (Rapat Roznamcha Aam), seizure memo (fard jabti), voter identity card, family ration card etc. 3. The appellant-Union of India resisted the claim petition and filed its written statement. The claim was also resisted in the backdrop of the contemplation under Section 123(c)(ii) of the Act of 1989 and exceptions carved out under proviso to Section 124A of the Act of 1989. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and materials available on record, granted the original application allowing compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs with interest @ 6% from the date of registration of the claim petition until order/award dated 27th July, 2016, and thereafter, 9% interest until payment of the amount. 4. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and materials available on record, granted the original application allowing compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs with interest @ 6% from the date of registration of the claim petition until order/award dated 27th July, 2016, and thereafter, 9% interest until payment of the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Union of India, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of the appeal, argued only on the issue number 2, asserting that the accident/incident is not covered within the ambit of definition of Section 124A of the Act of 1989, and therefore, the respondents/claimants are not entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record as well as gave my earnest consideration to the submissions at Bar so also carefully scanned the impugned order/award made by the Tribunal. From a glance of the order dated 27th July, 2016, it is reflected that the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as four issues, which reads thus: "1. Whether the deceased was a travelling on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time? 2. Whether the alleged incident does not fall under the definition of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants? 3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependants of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application? 4. Relief?" 6. For the arguments have been advanced only on the issue number 2, this Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel in the backdrop of the pleadings and findings arrived at by the Tribunal on that issue alone. The factual matrix, as reflected from the report of the Divisional Railway Manager in no uncertain terms reflects the conclusion that Raj Singh was found dead on the place of accident/incident. The Divisional Railway Manager in its report specifically concluded on the basis of the evidence and materials available on record that Raj Singh died due to accidental fall from the moving train on 9th November, 2012. The Divisional Railway Manager in its report specifically concluded on the basis of the evidence and materials available on record that Raj Singh died due to accidental fall from the moving train on 9th November, 2012. It will be gainful to extract the conclusion from the report of the Divisional Railway Manager as taken note of by the Tribunal, which reads thus: ^^var% mDr ?kVukLFky ij e`r ik;k O;fDr jkt flag iq= Jh egsanz flag ds en esa dh xbZ tk¡p o tk¡p i=koyh es miyC/k lk{; o nLrkostksa dk voyksdu djus ij ik;k tkrk gS fd jkt flag dh e`R;q pyrh xkM+h ls uhps fxjus ds dkj.k ?kVukLFky mDr ij fnukad 09-11-2012 dks e`R;q gksuk ik;k 7. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order dated 27th July, 2016, is bad for no eyewitness was produced in support of the claim petition instituted by the claimants/respondents. The plea appears to be without any factual foundation in the face of the conclusion arrived at by the Divisional Railway Manager on the basis of the evidence and materials available on record, which in no uncertain terms concluded that Raj Singh died due to accidental fall from the moving train on 9th November, 2012. 8. A glance of Section 124A of the Act of 1989, which deals with the compensation on account of "untoward incident", would reveal that present case, in the factual matrix and attendant materials, cannot be classified in the category one falling in the exceptions carved out under Section 124A of the Act of 1989, which reads thus: "124A. 8. A glance of Section 124A of the Act of 1989, which deals with the compensation on account of "untoward incident", would reveal that present case, in the factual matrix and attendant materials, cannot be classified in the category one falling in the exceptions carved out under Section 124A of the Act of 1989, which reads thus: "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 purposes 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." 9. The Tribunal committed no illegality while making the impugned order dated 27th July, 2016, for the issue as to "untoward accident", "accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers", in the face of contemplation under Section 123(c)(ii), 124A and 127 of the Act of 1989, is no more res-integra. 10. In the case of Union of India Versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 527 ; while dealing with the expressions aforesaid, the Supreme Court under paragraph 10, 11 and 12, held thus: "10. 10. In the case of Union of India Versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 527 ; while dealing with the expressions aforesaid, the Supreme Court under paragraph 10, 11 and 12, held thus: "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 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) IILLJ 735 SC, B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd.,(2001) IILLJ 1552 SC, Transport Corporation of India v. ESI Corporation, (2000) ILLJ 1 SC etc. 12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, (1961) ILLJ 328 SC, Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, (1984) IILLJ 464 SC, Lalappa Lingappa and Ors. v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., (1981) ILLJ 308 SC, S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom Distt. Manager, (2003) IILLJ 359 SC etc." 11. Ltd. v. The Workmen, (1961) ILLJ 328 SC, Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, (1984) IILLJ 464 SC, Lalappa Lingappa and Ors. v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., (1981) ILLJ 308 SC, S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom Distt. Manager, (2003) IILLJ 359 SC etc." 11. The Tribunal taking note of the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. (supra), declined to assign restrictive meaning of the expressions "untoward incident", "accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers", for good and valid reasons. It will be relevant to consider the text of the opinion of the Supreme Court as noted by the Tribunal under para 14 of the order dated 27th July, 2016, which reads thus: "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 traveling 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. 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 traveling 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." 12. No other argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellant-Union of India for consideration of this Court. 13. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality and/or error in the view adopted by the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, evidence and materials available on record while granting the original application of the claimants/respondents allowing compensation. 14. In the result; the appeal is devoid of any substance, and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 15. Ordered accordingly. 16. Stay application stands closed. 17. No costs.