JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 19.04.2010, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (II u)/RNC/2007/0005 whereby and where under, the Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the prayer for compensation filed by the appellants-claimants. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellants filed claim for compensation for death of their son – Gulab Khan, who died on 27.03.2006 at about 07:00 hours by accidentally falling down from Train No. 301 Up Asansol – Varanssi Passenger . Along with their son – Gulab Khan (since deceased), Gulam Ansari who is the father of the brother-in-law of Gulab Khan, sister of Gulam Ansari namely Rabia Khatoon and two minors namely Raza and Akhtar boarded Train No. 301 Up Asansol – Varanssi Passenger for going to Dhanbad. Gulam Ansari purchased ticket no. Z-65696210 from the booking courter of the Asansol Station for the said journey. There was heavy rush in the compartment so they could not secure seat inside the compartment of the said train, hence they were standing near the gate of compartment of the train. Suddenly, Gulab Khan fell down from the running train accidently due to pulling and pushing of the fellow passengers and due to jerk of the train, Gulab Khan fell between EOC/Sitarampur and RRI/Sitarampur near Sitarampur Railway Station. Gulam Ansari and others got down from the train at Sitarampur Station and rushed to the place of occurrence. After reaching there, they found that Gulab Khan was dead. After two hours police officer of G.R.P.S. Sitarampur along with constable and Doms reached there and police recorded the statement of Gulam Ansari. Later on postmortem on the dead body of Gulab Khan was conducted at the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Asansol. After notice, written statement/objection was filed by the Railways contending therein that the incident was not in an untoward incident in terms of Proviso of Section 123 of Railways (Amendment) Act -1994 and Railway did not admit that Gulab Khan fell down near Sitarampur Railway Station on 27.03.2006. As per Station Master’s report, one unknown male person aged about 20 years was lying between E.OC/Sitarampur and RRI/Sitarampur. The dead body was lying outside the track in between relief line & up main line. 4. As per Station Master’s report, one unknown male person aged about 20 years was lying between E.OC/Sitarampur and RRI/Sitarampur. The dead body was lying outside the track in between relief line & up main line. 4. In view of the rival pleadings, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:- Was Gulab Khan a passenger by Train No. 301 Up Asansol-Varanasi Passenger on 27.03.2006? Did he accidentally fall near Sitarampur railway station and die? Are the applicants entitled to any compensation? Reliefs and Costs. 5. In support of its case, the claimant examined himself and Gulam Ansari. The respondent-railway did not adduce any evidence whatsoever either oral or documentary. The tribunal after considering the evidence in the record observed that A.W.1 is not an eye witness and further the Railway Claims Tribunal posed following questions in the judgment:- Will a mother keep quiet seeing his son falling off the train? She would scream and cause the train to halt. Will A.W.2 remain silent? He would immediately pull the chain and stop it and further observed that these are the ordinary human conduct placed in the situation of seeing the closest relation falling from the train? And by observing that Ext.A4, the journey ticket has been produced to set up the forged claim that the deceased was a passenger, further went on to observe that the deceased died due to his own criminal act of stretching his body out of the train to such an extent that a side post hit his head and thus invited self-inflicting injury and dismissed the claim. 6. Mr. Basav Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Railway Claims Tribunal failed to consider the materials and evidence in the record and passed the impugned judgment on surmises and presumption and on certain assumption which has got nothing to do with the fact involved in this case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the tribunal failed to take note of the fact that it is not the case of the claimant-appellants that the mother of the deceased was travelling in 301 UP of Asansol-Varanasi Passenger train along with deceased. So there was no occasion for the Railway Claims Tribunal to pose the question that ‘Will a mother keep quiet seeing his son falling off the train?’ because no such fact was involved in this case in any manner. So there was no occasion for the Railway Claims Tribunal to pose the question that ‘Will a mother keep quiet seeing his son falling off the train?’ because no such fact was involved in this case in any manner. Further it is submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal posed question that ‘Will AW 2 remain silent?’ only on surmises and presumption and there is no material in the record to suggest that the AW 2 remained silent after the occurrence rather there is specific evidence of A.W.2 that he got down from the train and after reaching the place of occurrence saw that Gulab Khan died at the spot. It is further submitted that the evidence in the record put forth by the A.W. 2 and A.W. 1 as well as the documents proved on behalf of the claimants being A-1 to A-4 has proved the case of the claimants. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of Jameela and Others v. Union of India reported in (2010) 12 SCC 443 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph-12 as under :- 12. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railways, that the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the Railways 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 124-A. A criminal act envisaged under 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 Railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favour. 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 Railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favour. (Emphasis Supplied) Learned counsel for the appellants next relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi reported in 2018 (2) JBCJ 478 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set the following four issues in paragraph no.15 as under and went on to answer the same in the following manner :- Whether the quantum of compensation should be as per the prescribed rate of compensation as on the date of application/incident or on the date of order awarding compensation; Whether principle of strict liability applies; Whether presence of a body near the railway track is enough to maintain a claim. Rate of interest. The issue no. (i) regarding quantum of compensation was answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as under :- 15.4 Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon (supra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) stands explained accordingly. The 4-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as application on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given. (Emphasis Supplied) The Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the issue no. (Emphasis Supplied) The Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the issue no. (ii) relating to application of Principle of Strict Liability and Concept of Self Inflicted Injury, as under :- 16.6 We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor. (Emphasis Supplied) So far as the issue no. (iii) regarding burden of proof when body found on Railway premises – Definition of Passenger, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 17.4. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly. (Emphasis Supplied) So far as the issue no. (iv) regarding the rate of interest, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 18. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly. (Emphasis Supplied) So far as the issue no. (iv) regarding the rate of interest, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 18. As already observed, though this Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi (supra) held that rate of interest has to be at the rate of 6% from the date of application till the date of the award and 9% thereafter and 9% rate of interest was awarded from the date of application in Mohamadi (supra), rate of interest has to be reasonable rate at par with accident claim cases. We are of the view that in absence of any specific statutory provision, interest can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railways arises upto the date of payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal position in this regard is at par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in the manner. (Emphasis Supplied) It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment of the tribunal be set aside and the claimant-appellants be awarded compensation as per the above settled principle of law. Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and he also relied upon the judgment of Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra) and further submitted that there is no evidence in the record that the A.W. 2 pulled the chain to stop the train immediately after the occurrence which is the normal human conduct under the circumstances made out by the claimant-appellants and having not done so, the contention of the claimant-appellants that the death of Gulab Khan occurred in an untoward incident is not believable. Hence, he submits that the Railway Claims Tribunal having rightly dismissed the claim of the claimant-appellants, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. In view of the rival submissions made at the bar and on perusal of the record, the only point for determination in this appeal is “Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal was proper in dismissing the claim of the claimant-appellants on the basis of evidence available in record?” 7. In view of the rival submissions made at the bar and on perusal of the record, the only point for determination in this appeal is “Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal was proper in dismissing the claim of the claimant-appellants on the basis of evidence available in record?” 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the A.W. 2 is an eye-witness to the occurrence. He has narrated the occurrence in detail including purchasing of ticket and taking up the journey in 301 Up Asansol-Varanasi Passenger and accidental falling down of Gulab Khan from the running train and Gulab Khan succumbing to the injuries sustained in the accidental fall from the running train. In his cross-examination A.W. 2 has reiterated that due to jostling by the co-passengers, the deceased fell down from the running train and he denied the suggestion that the deceased fell down by his own negligence. A.W. 1 Shamim Khan has stated that the deceased Gulab Khan was unmarried and he has also corroborated the claim made in the claim petition. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was not with the deceased at the time of occurrence. On getting the news about the accident, he went to the Asansol Government Hospital and found the ticket and clothes etc. near the dead body of his son. Besides the oral testimony, the claimants have proved the F.I.R. which was instituted basing upon the information furnished by PSM/Sitarampur of Eastern Railway wherein he has intimated about the dead body of the deceased lying in between the relief line and up main line. The final report has been marked as Ext. 2 and therein the police after investigation has found that the deceased was travelling by 301 Up Asansol-Varanasi Passenger and in course of travelling he leaned out himself through the door of said train to spit and fell down from the running train and sustained fatal injuries, as a result of which he died. Ext. A 3 is the post-mortem report and Ext. A 4 is the journey ticket. 8. Ext. A 3 is the post-mortem report and Ext. A 4 is the journey ticket. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation in holding that the Railway Claims Tribunal misdirected by posing a question that ‘Will a mother keep quiet seeing his son falling off the train?’ as the mother of the deceased was nowhere in the train hence there was no occasion for the Railway Claims Tribunal to pose such a question as it is no way relevant to the facts of the case. The suggestion given by the respondent-Railway to the A.W. 2 itself suggested that Gulab Khan was travelling in the said 301 Up Asansol-Varanasi Passenger but it is the case of the railways that because of his own negligence, the deceased Gulab Khan fell down. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra) has categorically distinguished the concept of “self-inflicting injuries” as already referred in paragraph no.16.6. In view of the aforesaid principle of law and the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the death of Gulab Khan resulted in an untoward incident on 27.03.2006 and accordingly, the claimant nos.1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- each with simple interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from 27.03.2006 i.e. the date of the death of the deceased till actual payment. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the respondent-Railways is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the claimant appellant nos. 1 and 2 in terms of railway accident and untoward incident, compensation with simple interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of death of the deceased i.e. 27.03.2006 till the date of actual payment, less the amount if any paid. 10. The respondent shall pay the aforesaid amount within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed.