ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Railway. 2. The instant appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 16.08.2013 passed in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2010/0193 by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that claim petition has been filed by Shiv Pujan Yadav, father of the deceased, mentioning therein that on 14.06.2010, while his son, Ashok Kumar aged about 21 years was travelling from Rourkela to Jehanabad, he boarded the train at Roukela to Hatia and thereafter changed the train and boarded on train No. 8624 DN Hatia-Patna Express for going to Jehanabad on Ticket No. C-05329006, fell down at Bandhua Railway Station and died in hospital on 15.06.2010. In support of his application, applicant has filed copy of SM’s memo, Fardbayan, FIR, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report, Final Report and death certificate. 3. Railway has contested the claim by filing written statement on 12.07.2011 by stating that the incident is not admitted as no eyewitness has been indicated in the application. 4. Tribunal has framed issued firstly regarding bonafide passenger and secondly regarding death due to untoward incident. 5. So far bonafide passenger is concerned, the Claim Tribunal has returned the finding that deceased Ashok Kumar was travelling on Ticket No. C-05329006 from Rourkela to Jehanabad. At Hatia Station, Ashok Kumar boarded Train No. 8624 DN-Hatia-Patna Express for going to Jehanabad. Ticket No. has been mentioned in Inquest Report (Ext.A-6) and Police Final report (Ext.A-8). Respondent has not refuted the same. On the basis of the above evidence, finding has been recorded that deceased was a bona-fide passenger. Therefore, finding recorded by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. 6. So far as another issue relating to untoward incident is concerned, admittedly no eyewitness has come before the Claim Tribunal and witness produced by the claimant is not an eyewitness. The only circumstantial evidence has been produced. The Claim Tribunal has declined the contention of the claimant on two reasons: (i) No one has seen him getting down at Koderma to buy eatables and water, as the applicant is not an eye witness. (ii) At 5.30 hrs. The only circumstantial evidence has been produced. The Claim Tribunal has declined the contention of the claimant on two reasons: (i) No one has seen him getting down at Koderma to buy eatables and water, as the applicant is not an eye witness. (ii) At 5.30 hrs. early in morning, no one will get down to buy eatables, apparently the deceased was standing at the door of the bogie and thus fell down the whole story is totally imaginary and fictitious and not true and rejected the claim of the claimant by recording that this is a self-inflicted injury and the incident is not covered under the definition of ‘Untoward incident’ as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989. 7. Above finding has been recorded by the Tribunal without any evidence and only on the basis of surmises and conjecture The materials available on record as Ext. R-5, which is station diary report prepared by the Station Manager, Bandua, which suggests that it has been reported by a Gangman namely Tunnu Lal Gupta and Porter namely Bhagwan Rajwansi of Bandua Railway Station that a person aged about 20 years was lying besides the railway tract at KM 454/07-09. It has further been reported that for treatment, he was sent by 2815 UP Train at 8.26 AM and a report has been given to GRP, Gaya and PC, Gaya at 7.10 AM. 8. As per Annexure-8 which is the final report submitted by the GRP, Gaya, which suggests that GRP has received the deceased at Gaya Railway Station and taken him in Hospital where he was declared brought dead. 9. From the above material facts, it is evident that deceased was a bonafide passenger and he fell down from the train that stands proved in view of the above circumstances discussed hereinabove. 10. Defence taken by the Railway that it is not covered under the definition of Untoward Incident and has taken the defence of self-inflicted injury. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is quoted hereinbelow: "124A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. 10. Defence taken by the Railway that it is not covered under the definition of Untoward Incident and has taken the defence of self-inflicted injury. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is quoted hereinbelow: "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 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 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." 11. As per the postmortem report, anti-mortem injury has been caused by hard and blunt substance that may be due to falling from train. The cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage by injury inflicted by hard and blunt substance. 12. From the above fact, it appears that how deceased has fallen is not clear. 13. From the facts mention hereinabove, the incident that has taken place, it appears that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 14. In the absence of above material facts, presumption will lie in favour of the deceased. 15. DRM report has not been produced by the Railway Authority. 13. From the facts mention hereinabove, the incident that has taken place, it appears that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 14. In the absence of above material facts, presumption will lie in favour of the deceased. 15. DRM report has not been produced by the Railway Authority. In fact, no enquiry has been made by the Railway Authority, which is a mandatory requirement in law as per Rule 13 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, which is quoted herein-under: “13. Sending report to claim office.-(1) The investigation report alongwith acceptance of Divisional Railway Manager thereon shall be sent within fifteen days to the administrative in-charge of the claim office of the Zonal Railway where the incident has occurred. (2) The administrative in-charge of claim office of the Zonal Railway who has received the notice of claim for that particular incident shall arrange to collect the report from the claim office of Railway where the incident has occurred and submit the same to the concerned bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal along with the Written Statement.” 16. Thus, the law is clear that onus lies upon the Railway Authority as per the mandate of the above Rule, but the Railway Authority has failed to discharge his onus. Accordingly, adverse inference has to be drawn against the Railway Authority. 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the incident by which the son of the claimant died is covered under the definition of ‘Untoward Incident’ and accordingly, the claimant is entitled for compensation. 18. The date of incident is 14.06.2010 and at that point of time, compensation was Rs. 4,00,000/ (Rupees Four Lacs). 19. 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 should be granted, which was existing on the date of accident along with interest from the date of accident or the compensation prevalent on the date of the Award, whichever is higher. 20. In view of mandate of the Apex Court, the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 20. In view of mandate of the Apex Court, the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 8,00,000/ (Rupees Eight Lacs) to the Claimant as compensation within a period of three months from today failing which interest will be payable @ 7% per annum from the date of present order. 21. Accordingly, the present Misc. Appeal is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated hereinabove. Appeal allowed.