JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - original applicant under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 being aggrieved with the judgment and order rendered in Case No. OA 0300118 by Railway Claim Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench dated 16.05.2007 by which the claim petition is dismissed. 2. The short facts of the present appeal is that on 02.06.1989 while returning from Bombay to Surat the appellant was traveling in Train No. 2955 Dn Bombay Central Jaipur Express. The appellant fell down from the running train near Dungari Station Valsad at about 23.45 P.M., where he sustained serious injuries on the head and other parts of the body. Therefore, on the basis of worthy of one Pragneshbhai Kapadia bearding No. 4/98, who telephonically conveyed to the Valsad Police Station on the basis of which entry No. 25/02 was registered by the Government Police Station, Valsad. The victim was admitted in Sir D.M. Pitit Municipal Dispensary by Entry No. 171 on the basis of Police Case at about 01.10 p.m. of 03.06.98 and was treated there from 06.08.1998 to 30.06.1998. It is found that there was ankle traumatic amputation on left leg 10 Cm below the left knee joint as well as on right side leg above 10 Cm ankle joint the underline muscle tibia and filulin were exposed. He was discharged on 30.06.1998 and had obtained medical treatment from the Orthopedic Surgeon of Shri Rang Hospital, Valsad. On the basis of that, the applicant has filed the aforesaid claim petition and the same came to be dismissed, and therefore, present appeal has been filed on the ground stated in the appeal, inter alia, that the Tribunal has committed error in appreciating the evidence and also considering the aspect of burden of proof. It is also stated that the Tribunal has also committed error by considering "Whether the applicant could be said to be a bona fide passenger and also appreciating the provisions of the Railway Act, 1989, particularly 124(A) of the Act regarding untoward incident. 3. Heard learned advocate Shri P.J. Mehta for the appellant and learned advocate Shri Ravi Karnavat for the respondent. 4. 3. Heard learned advocate Shri P.J. Mehta for the appellant and learned advocate Shri Ravi Karnavat for the respondent. 4. Learned advocate Shri Mehta referred to the papers and submitted that the Tribunal made observations that the applicant was not having ticket, and therefore, he is not bona fide passenger and also that the claimant has not deposed that his friend was also with him, and therefore, while considering the provisions of Section 123(C)(2) of the Railways Act regarding untoward incident, the Tribunal has committed a error with regard to the occurrence of the incident and also whether the accident has occurred as stated which could be said to be untoward incident. 5. Learned advocate Shri Mehta referred to the paper book and the evidence and submitted that the reliance is placed on the evidence of the Deputy Station Superintendent. However, he has in fact accepted that the train did not stopped at Dungari Station and it is not true that the appellant has fallen down at the railway station. He submitted that the applicant has clearly stated about the manner of the incident. He pointedly referred to the evidence of the applicant and submitted that the applicant has stated that while going to attend natural call, he fell down due to sudden jerk and also due to open door of the boggie near Dungari Railway Station. Thus, it is not in dispute that the applicant was traveling for which there is a entry and admittedly he was taken to the hospital on the basis of the Worthy. Therefore, learned advocate Shri Mehta submitted that in view of the evidence of the applicant, the accident has not occurred at Dungari Railway Station and reliance of the evidence of Deputy Station Superintendent is without any consequence. He submitted that the accident has taken place in a moving train near Dungari Station and not on the platform. He therefore submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in appreciating the evidence. 6. Learned advocate Shri Karnavat has referred to the papers including evidence of the applicant, Deputy Station Superintendent and also other material evidence. He submitted that the applicant has failed to produce legal and valid ticket of the train. He therefore submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in appreciating the evidence. 6. Learned advocate Shri Karnavat has referred to the papers including evidence of the applicant, Deputy Station Superintendent and also other material evidence. He submitted that the applicant has failed to produce legal and valid ticket of the train. He submitted that if he was bona fide passenger, ticket could have been issued, and therefore, the applicant is not bona fide passenger as defined under Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989. 7. Learned advocate Shri Karnavat submitted that the applicant has to first establish that he was a bona fide passenger then only the issue regarding untoward incident under Section 123(C)(2) of the Act could be considered for the purpose of under Section 124(A) of the Act. He also tried to submit that the Deputy Station Superintendent has also stated that as the train does not stop at the Dungari Station untoward incident has not occurred, and therefore, he has strenuously submitted that as the incident untoward incident under Section 123(C)(2) of the Act is not established, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application. 8. In view of the rival submissions which are required to be considered whether the present appeal deserves consideration or not? As could be seen from the background of facts, the applicant was travelling in a Train No. 2955 Dn from Bombay to Surat. It is also a fact that he was taken to the hospital on the basis of the Worthy given by one passenger Pragnesh Kapadia to the Valsad Police Station. On the basis thereof, entry was made and the victim had been admitted in the hospital. 9. Therefore, moot question is whether contention about bona fide passenger or untoward incident required scrutiny or not? and whether contention can be said to have been appreciated properly by the Court below or not? As it appears when there is a sufficient evidence with regard to the incident and the victim is taken to the hospital itself would suggest that such incident has occurred. The applicant, in his evidence also stated about the manner in which the incident occurred that while going to answer natural call, he fell down down due to sudden jerk and also due to open door of the boggie. The applicant, in his evidence also stated about the manner in which the incident occurred that while going to answer natural call, he fell down down due to sudden jerk and also due to open door of the boggie. He also stated that he fell down from the running train which was moving, and therefore, it is not his case that accident occurred near the platform of Dungari Station. Therefore, evidence given by Deputy Station Superintendent is without any consequence. The statement made by the Deputy Station Superintendent even if it is accepted at the face value, it would suggest that the accident or incident has not occurred at the Dungari Station. Therefore, it is not even the case of the applicant that any such incident has occurred at the Dungari Railway Station. He has clearly stated that accident had occurred while train was moving and passing from Dungari Railway Station. Therefore, merely because a ticket was not produced other evidence cannot be brushed aside like the entry made on the basis of worthy and the victim having been take by the police to the hospital. This itself would imply that the incident has occurred. It may happen that, in such incident, the ticket may get lost and may not be traceable, and therefore, presumption cannot be made that as no ticket is not produced, no incident has occurred or claimant is not bona fide passenger. It is required to be stated that while deciding such application, it has to be considered with background of facts. Therefore, once it is established that the applicant was travelling in a Train No. 2955 Dn Bombay Central Jaipur Express and he fell down from running train, it would be covered under Section 123(C)(2) of the Act. 10. Section 123(C) define "Untoward Incident". Section 123(C)(2) provides "the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers". Again Section 124 and Section 124(A) of the Act provided for the liability of the railway irrespective of any negligence. In other words, provisions of Section 124(A) provided for the compensation on account of untoward incident. 11. Thus, proviso of Section 124(A) of the Act referring to explanation that no compensation would be payable, if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to any of the circumstances stated in the proviso and the explanation. In other words, provisions of Section 124(A) provided for the compensation on account of untoward incident. 11. Thus, proviso of Section 124(A) of the Act referring to explanation that no compensation would be payable, if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to any of the circumstances stated in the proviso and the explanation. In another words, the railway administration may not be liable in respect of injury or the death, if the case fall in any circumstances specified therein. 12. Therefore, as the victim fell down from the running train, it would be covered under Section 123(C)(2) of the Act. The provision of Section 124(A) of the Act is based on underlying concept of strict liability. The Railway cannot escape the liability raising the contention on the basis of negligence available under Law of Torts in view of the specific provision under the Railways Act. A close look at Section 124(A) of the Railways Act also make the position clear. The proviso to Section carves out a limited incident where the Railway may not be liable and the case of the deceased does not fall in any of the exceptions provided in the proviso on the basis of which the Railway could avoid the liability. In other words, the provision suggests the concept of strict liability where the liability would be incurred by railway regardless of any negligence. It is required to be mentioned that the doctrine of strict liability can be traced from the judgment of the courts including in case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, reported in (1868) LR 3 HC 330. The concept of strict liability is based on either the nature of activity, where the law provides for compensation on happening of an accident irrespective of the negligence. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v/s. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in 2008 Law Suit (SC) 750. A useful reference can also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1086 (1) which again referred to the aspect of strict liability. 13. As stated herein above, the accident is established which could be covered as untoward incident. A useful reference can also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1086 (1) which again referred to the aspect of strict liability. 13. As stated herein above, the accident is established which could be covered as untoward incident. Therefore, as it does not fall in any of the exceptions provided in proviso to Section 124(A) of the Act, the railway cannot escape the liability in light of the statutory provisions of Section 124(A) of the Railways Act. Similarly the contentions about the bona fide passenger are misconceived, where such accident take place. Further, when such accident take place there is every possibility that the ticket may be lost, and therefore, it could not be presumed that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in light of the all attaining circumstances and the material evidence. 14. A useful reference can be made to the judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 3705 . While considering the scope of Section 124(A) of the Act, it has been observed and quoted in Paragraph No. 4 regarding similar incident where the victim was sought to be blamed for the incident for his own negligence. However, it has been observed that ""Secondly, even if it were to be 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.". It has been further observed that "the manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124A. A criminal act envisaged in clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the 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. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour." 15. Standing at the open doors of the 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. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour." 15. In other words the provisions suggest the concept of strict liability when the liability would be incurred by the Railway regardless of any negligence. It is required to be mentioned that the doctrine of strict liability can be traced from the judgment of the courts including in case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, reported in (1868) LR 3 HC 330. The concept of strict liability is based on either the nature of activity, where the law provides for compensation on happening of an accident irrespective of the negligence. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v/s. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in 2008 Law Suit (SC) 750. A useful reference can also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1086 (1) which again referred to the aspect of strict liability. 16. It is in these circumstances, the judgment and order by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside allowing the present appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant would be entitled for the compensation due to railway accident and untoward incident (compensation rules) referred the amount of compensation payable in respect of the death or injuries. The part II of the Schedule referred to "compensation payable for death and injury". Part II (3) referred for double amputation through leg or thigh or amputation through leg or thigh on one side and loss of other foot. 17. Therefore, looking to the injury with amputation as stated in detail, the respondent-railway would be liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 Lacs along with interest at the rate of 9% to the applicant from the date of the application. The respondent - railway administration shall deposit the amount and make the payment of the compensation within a period of three months from today, failing which, interest could be paid at the rate of 12. Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed. Appeal Allowed