ORDER : I.A. No. 549 of 2014 1. I. A. No. 549 of 2014 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 53 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. The appeal has been filed by the widow of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has not raised any objection. 4. Having considering the reasons stated in the instant interlocutory application and in the interest of justice, delay of 53 days in preferring the instant appeal is, hereby, condoned. 5. I.A. No. 549 of 2014 stands disposed of. Misc. Appeal No. 50 of 2014 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Railway. 7. The instant appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 22.08.2013 passed in Case No. TAU/RNC/2003/0021 by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench. 8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that claim petition has been filed by Prema Devi, wife of the deceased, mentioning therein that on 13.06.2000, while her husband, Suresh Prasad Sah was travelling from Barharwa to Sahibganj by Howrah Barauni Passenger, he met with an accident by wind emanating from the speeding Tinsukhia Down Train No. 4056 while he was standing at the gate near Maharajpur Railway Station as the compartment was full of passengers and there was no sitting space within the compartment. 6. Learned Tribunal has framed three issues, which are being quoted hereinunder: “1. Whether the deceased Suresh Prasad Sah, s/o Late Bishwanath Sah was a bonafide passenger as alleged? 2. Whether any untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to the deceased Suresh Prasad Sah s/o Late Bishwanath Sah while travelling in train no. 209 UP on 13.06.2000? 3. Whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any?” 10. So far as issue no. 1 is concerned, finding has been recorded that deceased was a bonafide passenger as ticket has been found. 11. Claim Tribunal has turned down issue no. 2 on the ground that as the passenger was standing near the gate, it is negligent on the part of the deceased passenger itself and as such, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. 12. 11. Claim Tribunal has turned down issue no. 2 on the ground that as the passenger was standing near the gate, it is negligent on the part of the deceased passenger itself and as such, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jameela and Ors Vs. Union of India reported in (2010) 12 SCC 443 . Para Nos. 6 to 9 of the judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “6. Before the High Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the Railways on the proviso to section 124 A of the Act which provides that no compensation will be payable under that sec-tion by the Railway Administration if the passenger died or suffered injury due to (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him, (b) self-inflicted injury, or (c) his own criminal act. A refer-ence was also made to Section 154 of the Act which provides that if any person does any act in a rash and negligent manner, or omits to do what he is legally bound to do, and the act or omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person travel-ling or being upon any railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. It was further contended on behalf of the Railway that the deceased M. Hafeez who was travelling in a negligent manner was standing at the door from where he fell down near the Magarwara Railway Station, where the train does not stop. (It needs to be pointed out that this contention could only be based on speculation, as admittedly there was no eyewitness to the accident). The High Court accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the Railways and allowed the appeal observing as follows: "On the basis of the law & facts indicated by the learned coun-sel for the parties, we find that in the present case the victim is to be blamed for the incident being negligent and therefore this case is not covered by the definition of untoward inci-dent. However, so far as the compensation is concerned the case of the claimant is covered by the provision of section 124 A as because of his own negligence the deceased had fallen down from the train which caused his death. Further, in the light of the fact that the deceased acted in a negligent manner without any precaution of safety by station going at the open door of the running train which resulted into his death." (Emphasis added) 7. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under section 124 A of the Act, because the de-ceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railways that the de-ceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eye-witness to the fall of the deceased from the train and, there-fore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railways that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. 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 124 A of the Act. 8. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the Lia-bility of Railway Administration for Death and Injury to Pas-sengers due to Accidents. section 123, the first section of the Chapter, has the definition clauses. Clause (c) defines "unto-ward incident" which insofar as relevant for the present is as under: "123 (c) ‘untoward incident’ means- (1) (i) -(iii) (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carry-ing passengers." 9. Section 124 A of the Act provides as follows: "124A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. Clause (c) defines "unto-ward incident" which insofar as relevant for the present is as under: "123 (c) ‘untoward incident’ means- (1) (i) -(iii) (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carry-ing passengers." 9. Section 124 A of the Act provides as follows: "124A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. - 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 un-der 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 in-sanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treat-ment 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." (emphasis added)” 13. From perusal of the Section 124-A as well as judgment quoted hereinabove, it is evident that Tribunal, only on the ground that passenger was standing on the gate, cannot disentitle the claimant from getting compensation as per the provision of Section 124-A. 14. Accordingly, the Court finds that incident regarding husband of the claimant is covered under the definition of ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123 (c) (2) and as such, the claimant is entitled for compensation and the findings recorded by the Claim Tribunal is, hereby, reversed. 15. Accordingly, the Court finds that incident regarding husband of the claimant is covered under the definition of ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123 (c) (2) and as such, the claimant is entitled for compensation and the findings recorded by the Claim Tribunal is, hereby, reversed. 15. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, as per the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in 2018(2) JBCJ 478 (SC), law has been declared by the Apex Court that quantum of compensation can be granted, which was existing on the date of accident and further interest be given from the date of accident. 16. Learned counsel for the Railways has submitted that quantum of compensation existing on the date of accident i.e. on 13.06.2000 is Rs. 4,00,000/-. 17. Accordingly, this court directs that the appellant will be entitled for Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of accident i.e. on 13.06.2000 till the actual date of payment. 18. With the above modification, the present Misc. Appeal is allowed.