JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 27.04.2010, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. REV/RNC/2010/0009 arising out of TAU/RNC/2005/0038. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellants being the parents, wife and son of the deceased Santosh Kumar Soni have filed a claim application claiming compensation for the death of Santosh Kumar Soni being a passenger died due to injuries sustained by him because of accidental fall while boarding the Train No. 338 (Local) on 30.07.2005. It was admitted by the respondent before the Railway Claims Tribunal that the deceased had fallen down from the local train near Jai Ram Nagar Railway Station between 75 K.M. -704/16-14 K.M. on 30.07.2005. The alleged incident was enquired through statutory authority. It reveals from the investigation report that the deceased had fallen down from train while he was trying to board the running train from the offside and subsequently fell down and got run over. The tribunal has dismissed the claim on the ground that the incident is not even an accident much less an accidental fall and the death was not in an untoward incident. Hence the dependents of the deceased – Santosh Kumar Soni are not entitled for claim. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the provision for compensation under the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the death due to injuries sustained because of falling down while boarding on train amounts to an accident and since it is an admitted case of the respondents –railway authorities that the deceased Santosh Kumar Soni died because of the injuries sustained by fall while boarding the train, hence the tribunal erred by dismissing the claim petition. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of the tribunal being not sustainable in law be set aside and the appellants be paid a compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of the tribunal and submitted that the alleged occurrence do not come under the definition of accident, as defined under section 123(a) of the Railway Act, 1989 rather the same comes under an untoward accident as defined under section 123 (c) of the Railway Act, 1989. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of the tribunal and submitted that the alleged occurrence do not come under the definition of accident, as defined under section 123(a) of the Railway Act, 1989 rather the same comes under an untoward accident as defined under section 123 (c) of the Railway Act, 1989. It is also submitted that the tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application hence, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 6. In view of the rival submissions made at the bar, the points for determination is that whether the tribunal was proper in denying claim of the appellants on the ground that the occurrence of falling while boarding a train is not an accident. 7. It is a settled principle of law that since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one and that the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” includes 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, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs- 8, 11 and 14 which read as under:- “8. However, the evidence of DW 1, D. Sajjan, who was the Station Master at the railway station corroborates the evidence of PW 2. DW 1 had deposed that he saw one girl running towards the train and trying to enter the train and she fell down. He has further stated that the deceased Abja had attempted to board the train and fell down from the running train. For this reason, the Tribunal held that this was not an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the expression in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as it was not an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. 11. For this reason, the Tribunal held that this was not an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the expression in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as it was not an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. 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 (SCC para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd. (SCC para 12) and Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn. 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 county 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. Hence, in our opinion, the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” includes 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.” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. In other words, a purposive and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rathi Menon Versus Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 714 has elaborately discussed the circumstances and the reasons for payment of enhanced compensation in terms of the Railways Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 and observed that the value of money to be paid as compensation will not be same after the lapse of several years because the purchasing power of the money decreases on account of rise in cost of living due to rise in prices of commodities. The ratio laid down in the case of Rathi Menon (supra) has been reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of N. Parameswaran Pillai And Another Versus Union of India & Another reported in (2002) 4 SCC 306 . Paragraphs-28 and 29 of Rathi Menon (supra) reads as under:- “28. The Central Government while changing the figures in compensation amount after an interval of a decade was only influenced by the desire to update the money value of the compensation. In other words, what you were to pay ten years ago to one person cannot be the same if it is paid today in the same figure of currency notes. It is for the purpose for meeting the reality that the Central Government changed the figures. 29. The unjust consequence resulting from the interpretation which the Division Bench placed can be demonstrated in another plane also. If a persons who sustained injury in a railway accident or in an untoward incident was disabled from making an application immediately and he makes the application a few years hence, is he to get the compensation in terms of the money value which prevailed on the date of the accident? Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the application and the claimant approaches the High Court in appeal. As it happens quite often now, some High Courts could take up such an appeal only after the lapse of many years and if the appeal is decided in favour of the claimant after so many years, what a pity if the amount awarded is only in terms of the figure indicated on the date of the accident.” 10. As it happens quite often now, some High Courts could take up such an appeal only after the lapse of many years and if the appeal is decided in favour of the claimant after so many years, what a pity if the amount awarded is only in terms of the figure indicated on the date of the accident.” 10. In the case of Sri Dharnidhar Sharma Versus The Union of India vide order dated 08.12.2017 in M.A. No. 267 of 2010, a coordinate bench of this court directed payment of enhanced compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum relying upon the judgment of Rathi Menon (supra) paragraph-13 of which reads as under:- “13. The appellant’s claim for the compensation was based on Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”). The said section itself was introduced as per Railway (Amendment) Act 28 of 1994. The section provided for awarding compensation to victims of any “untoward incident” which occurs in the course of working of a railway. The expression “untoward incident” was alien to the Railways Act before Parliament inserted such an expression in the statute as per the Amendment Act 28 of 1994. Prior to it the Railways could have granted compensation only to the victims of an “accident”. As the definition of accident in the Act did not embrace instances of other types of disasters which frequently happened during train journeys, Parliament, in its wisdom, decided to insert a new category of disasters, both man-made and otherwise, to be the causes of action for claiming compensation.” 11. In view of the settled principle of law in the case of Union of India Versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the tribunal erred in holding that the occurrence of death due to injuries caused by falling down while boarding a train is not an accident. Accordingly the impugned order of the tribunal is set aside and this court is of the considered view that the materials in the record is sufficient to hold that the death of the deceased Santosh Kumar Soni, took place because of an accident while boarding the train. Accordingly the impugned order of the tribunal is set aside and this court is of the considered view that the materials in the record is sufficient to hold that the death of the deceased Santosh Kumar Soni, took place because of an accident while boarding the train. Keeping in view the principle of law settled in the case of Rathi Menon (supra), N. Parameswaran Pillai (supra) and Sri Dharnidhar Sharma Versus The Union of India(supra) the four claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with simple interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application in equal proportions that is Rs.2,00,000/- with simple interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application to each of the applicants. 12. Accordingly the respondent- Railways is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight lakh) in terms of the amended provision of the Railways Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016, with simple interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application to the claimant-applicants in equal proportions that is Rs.2,00,000/- with simple interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application to each of the claimant-applicants within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. 13. In the result this appeal is allowed.