JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 arises out of the judgment and order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow, in case No. OA/II/U/155/11; Smt. Gayatri Devi Vs. Union of India whereby the Tribunal while allowing the claim of the respondent-claimant awarded a sum of Rs. 8 lacs as compensation. The Tribunal further awarded 6 % simple interest from the date of application to 31.12.2016 on the amount of compensation i.e. four lacs and from 1.1.2017 to the date of judgment on a sum of Rupees Eight lacs. The said amount was to be paid within 90 days failing which interest at the rate of 9% was payable. 2. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned Tribunal merely on the basis of presumption has passed the impugned award without considering the evidence and material filed by the appellant rebutting the claim of the respondents. It has also been asserted that the nature of injuries reported in the post-mortem report and ‘panchayatnama’ do not suggest accidental falling from the train. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also contended that there is no statutory provision under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act for awarding interest upon the compensation towards the untoward accident and as such, any direction for award of interest upon the compensation amount is against the statute. The Tribunal, therefore, committed manifest error by allowing interest to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim petition. In fact, the amount of compensation becomes payable after it is determined by the Tribunal and if the appellant failed to pay within the stipulated time, it can be directed to pay interest from the date of order of the determination, but in no case, direction for interest can be given before the claim is ascertained or determined. 4. On behalf of the respondent, while defending the impugned award, it has been submitted that the payment of interest from the date of filing of claim has been settled by the catena of judgments rendered by the Apex Court, therefore, the assertion of the appellant is not tenable. The impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is based on cogent findings and as such the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. The impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is based on cogent findings and as such the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the respondent no.1-Smt. Gyatri Devi filed a railway accident claim before the Railway Claim Tribunal, Lucknow, bearing Case No. OA/II/U/155/11 consequent to the death of Sri Niranjan Singh on account of his fall from the Memo Train while travelling from Manak Nagar to Kanpur Central on a second class Ticket on 27.9.2010. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues:- 1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question ? 2. Whether the incident of death of the deceased, falls under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(C)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 3. Whether the applicant is only dependent of the deceased? 4. To what Relief ? 7. The Tribunal on the basis of ocular evidence given by Brijendra Singh (AW-2) recorded a finding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. On a consideration of the materials brought before it, the Tribunal found and held that the claimants had proved that the death of Sri Niranjan Singh was due to an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123 of the Act. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death occurred as he was thrown out of the train on account of it being over crowded. Here, we would like to point out that the Apex Court as also the High Court in catena of cases has held that the word “passenger” occurring under section 124-A means a railway servant on duty and also a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers. Here, we would like to point out that the Apex Court as also the High Court in catena of cases has held that the word “passenger” occurring under section 124-A means a railway servant on duty and also a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers. Further 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 except the categories of suicide or attempted suicide, self- inflicted injury, own criminal act, any act committed in a state of intoxication or insanity, any natural cause of disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. 8. In the case of N. Parameswaran Pillai. Vs. Union of India and another; AIR 2002 SC 1834 ; the deceased was travelling in train No.6334 on a valid ticket issued by the Southern railways. The deceased was accidentally thrown out of the train on account of over crowding. The deceased got injuries all over his body and ultimately died. Railway Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for the untoward incident. The Kerala High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. Against the amount of compensation, Parmeshwaran filed an appeal before the supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the railway administration to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs as compensation to the appellant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that section 82-A of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation to compensate monetarily as a fixed sum to each victim involved in railway accident. To place onus of proof on the dependent will amount to denial of benefit of such legislation to them for reasons beyond their control because such onus is impossible to be discharged. 9. To place onus of proof on the dependent will amount to denial of benefit of such legislation to them for reasons beyond their control because such onus is impossible to be discharged. 9. Now, coming to settled position regarding payment of compensation, we may mention that the Railway Administration shall not be liable to pay compensation on account of the death if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to suicide or attempted suicide by him; self inflicted injury; own criminal act; any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity or any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Therefore, the Railway can escape liability of payment of compensation, only, if the aforesaid circumstances are proved by them. Incidences mentioned in proviso to Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989 being exception to the general rule for payment of compensation for the death, the burden lies on the railways to prove any of these circumstances, which may fall within the exceptions. In the absence of any proof by the Railway Administration, it shall be presumed that the accident occurred on account of untoward incident. 10. As far as the present case is concerned, The Tribunal in its judgment has observed that no cogent evidence was lead by the appellant to prove its version that the case does not fall within the definition of untoward incident. 11. From the materials on record, it is established that the railways has not been able to prove its case so as to bring the case within the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act, 1989. Once it is found that the death had occurred on account of untoward incident, the direction for payment of compensation by the Railway Claims Tribunal is in accordance with law. The judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal is well founded and is based on the materials placed on record. We do not find any reason to interfere with. 12. Now, coming to the question of awarding interest on the compensation amount, in the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. Eight lacs as compensation in view of the notification dated 22.12.2016. While awarding the said amount of compensation, the Tribunal has provided that an interest @ 6% shall be paid on Rs. 12. Now, coming to the question of awarding interest on the compensation amount, in the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. Eight lacs as compensation in view of the notification dated 22.12.2016. While awarding the said amount of compensation, the Tribunal has provided that an interest @ 6% shall be paid on Rs. four lacs from the date of application to 31.12.2016 whereas from 1.1.2017 to the date of judgment it shall be payable on a sum of Rupees eight lacs. Further, in the event of default of payment of amount of compensation within ninety days, penal interest @ 9% would be payable. 13. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of the Union of India versus Rina Devi [Civil Appeal No. 4945 of 2018 decided on 9.5.2018] was considering the relevant date for applying the rate of compensation when different rate is applicable at the time of filing of claim and on the date of the order. The Apex Court framed following issues; (i) 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; (ii) Whether principle of strict liability applies; (iii) Whether presence of a body near the railway track is enough to maintain a claim. (iv) Rate of interest. 14. While answering the issue no. 1, the Apex Court held that the 4-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo versus Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289 holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as applicable 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 the award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given. The relevant paragraph of Rina Devi’s case [supra] reads as under:- 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. 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 applicable 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. 15. As regard the grant of interest, we would like to observe that in cases, where the statute does not make any specific provision for payment of interest on any awarded sum, the power of the Courts to grant interest can be derived from the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978 and the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others Versus Union of India and another arising out of Civil Appeal No. 3568 of 2009, the Apex Court held as under:- “16. It is, therefore, clear that the Court, while making a decree for payment of money is entitled to grant interest at the current rate of interest or contractual rate as it deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged to be payable and/or awarded, from the date of claim or from the date of the order or decree for recovery of the outstanding dues. There is also hardly any room for doubt that interest may be claimed on any amount decreed or awarded for the period during which the money was due and yet remained unpaid to the claimants.” 16. In Rina Devi’s case [supra] while dealing with grant of interest on comepnsation amount (issue no.4), the Apex Court held that interest can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railway arises upto the date of payment without any difference in the stages. In Rina Devi’s case [supra] while dealing with grant of interest on comepnsation amount (issue no.4), the Apex Court held that interest can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railway arises upto the date of payment without any difference in the stages. The relevant paragraph reads as under:- “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 this manner.” 17. As far as the case at hand is concerned, in view of the proposition of law as propounded in Rina Devi’s [supra] it is necessary to calculate the total amount i.e. amount of compensation plus interest to ascertain whether the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award. In the event the amount of compensation with interest was less than the amount prescribed on the date of award, then the amount which is higher is to be paid to the claimants. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be secured by awarding Rs. Eight lac in all as compensation to the claimants. It may be added that provisions for compensating monetarily either under the Railways Act or Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the purpose for award of interest is to put pressure on the relevant person not to delay in making the payment. Eight lac in all as compensation to the claimants. It may be added that provisions for compensating monetarily either under the Railways Act or Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the purpose for award of interest is to put pressure on the relevant person not to delay in making the payment. In other words, when any amount is due to a creditor and the same is not paid by the debtor over a certain period, the creditor is deprived of the use of the said amount for the period during which the amount remains unpaid for which he is entitled to be compensated by way of payment of interest. Therefore, in the event the appellants fails to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. Eight lacs within a period of 90 days, then interest @ 9% shall be payable till the date of actual payment. 19. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Parties to bear their own costs.