ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-railway. 2. The present claim application has been filed on 19.01.2004 by the wife, daughter, father and mother of the deceased, namely, Nageshwar Saw. It has been asserted in the claim application that the deceased was travelling by train (EMU Passenger) on 01.10.2003 from Sharmatar station to Gomoh in Second Class compartment holding proper ticket. When train reached near Hazaribagh Road Station, the deceased tried to spit from the running train coming near the gate and as such due to accidental fall he died on the spot. 3. The Railway Claim Tribunal has framed three issues which are quoted hereunder: i. Did Nageshwar Saw die as he fell down accidentally from running train EMU Passenger? ii. Who are the dependents of the deceased? iii. Relief and costs. 4. While dealing with the issue relating to bonafide passenger, the Claim Tribunal has found that since no ticket has been recovered, deceased cannot termed as bonafide passenger. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that when the deceased and his elder brother, namely, Amit Saw was travelling in Second Class, the presumption should lies that they were bonafide passenger having proper ticket. As no person is allowed to enter into the platform or to board a train or to continue his journey if they don’t have a valid ticket. At every stage, railway has authorities to filter out the unauthorised person for entering in railway station or boarding the train or to continue with the journey. 6. It has been further submitted that it has been specifically mentioned in the claim application that they were having ticket which has been lost in the accident and affidavit to that effect has also been filed. Thus, initial burden has been discharged by the claimants and it was upon the railway authority to disprove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. 7. It has been further stated that from perusal of the inquest report, it is evident that nothing has been recovered from the body of the deceased. These are the usual phenomenon rather casual approach who is preparing the inquest report. 8. The person travelling usually keeps some money, some articles, wallet and handkerchief etc. in their pocket. This is common. It has been further stated that from perusal of the inquest report, it is evident that nothing has been recovered from the body of the deceased. These are the usual phenomenon rather casual approach who is preparing the inquest report. 8. The person travelling usually keeps some money, some articles, wallet and handkerchief etc. in their pocket. This is common. Mentioning no recovery in the inquest report from the body suggests the casual approach by the authority and on this basis it cannot be held that as no ticket has been found from the body of the deceased and as such unauthorised passenger. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-railway has opposed the prayer but could not point out any material brought on record which could suggest that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 11. So far as untoward incident is concerned, it has been admitted that while spitting through the door, due to leg slip, deceased fell down from the running train, subsequently he died on the spot. 12. Thus, whether the act of deceased comes under the definition of self inflicted injury or not, is the only issue to be decided. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court reported in 2018 (2) JBCJ 478 (SC) in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi from which paragraphs 16.6 is quoted hereunder: 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. 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’ entering 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. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court reported in (2010) 12 SCC 443 in the case of Jameela and Ors. Vrs. Union of India from which paragraphs 6 to 12 are quoted hereunder: 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 section 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 reference 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 travelling 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 Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez who was travelling in a negligent manner was standing at the door from where he fell down near Magarwara Railway Station, where the train does not stop. It was further contended on behalf of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez who was travelling in a negligent manner was standing at the door from where he fell down near 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 and facts indicated by the learned counsel 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 incident. However, so far as the compensation is concerned the case of the claimant is covered by the provision of Section 124A 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 (sic) going at the open door of the running train which resulted into his death.” 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 deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railways that the deceased 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 eyewitness to the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, 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 liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. 8. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123, the first section of the Chapter, has definition clauses. Clause (c) defines “untoward incident” which insofar as relevant for the present case is as under: “123. (c) ‘untoward incident’ means— (1)(i)-(iii) * * * (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 9. Section 124-A of the Act provides as follows: “124-A. 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 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.” 10. It is not denied by the Railways that M. Hafeez fell down from the train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a “passenger” for the purpose of Section 124-A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under Section 124-A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. He was, therefore, clearly a “passenger” for the purpose of Section 124-A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under Section 124-A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. But the proviso to the section says that the Railway Administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). 11. Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railways that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental. 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. 15. On the basis of above judgments, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that merely the fact that he was trying to spit through the door and this act will not come in the exception clause as mentioned in Section 124 (a) to (e) in Railway Act. 16. In view of the above submission and judgment of the Apex Court, this Court finds that the accident is covered under the untoward incident, accordingly, claimant are entitled for compensation. 17. 16. In view of the above submission and judgment of the Apex Court, this Court finds that the accident is covered under the untoward incident, accordingly, claimant are entitled for compensation. 17. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-railway has submitted that as per the recent judgment decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of Rina Devi (supra), it has been held that the amount shall be decided, which is prevalent on the date of accident not on the date of Award. It has been further submitted that on the date of Award, the compensation amount was Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lacs). 18. Accordingly, this Court Awarded Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lacs) to the claimants as per the mandate of Apex Court in case of Rina Devi (supra). 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the same judgment i.e. Rina Devi (supra), claimants are entitled for interest from the date of accident i.e. 01.10.2003. 20. Accordingly, interest @ 6% per annum is granted from the date of accident. 21. With above direction, the present appeal is hereby allowed. Appeal allowed.