JUDGMENT : Heard the counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the respondent. 2. The present appeal arises out of the claim application being Case No. TAU/RNC/2003/0056, filed by the appellants, whose husband/ fathers, has died on 06.09.2002 by Train No.3007 UP Howrah-New Delhi Toofan Express, as he fell down from the train. 3. Learned Claim Tribunal has framed following issues:- 1. Whether the deceased Rajendra Prasad Keshri s/o late Mahabir Prasad Sah was a bonafide passenger as alleged? 2. Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to Rajendra Prasad Keshri s/o late Mahabir Prasad Sah while travelling in Train No.3007 UP Howrah-New Delhi Toofan Express on 06.09.2002 near Jasidih Railway station? 3. Whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any? 4. From the perusal of the evidence, it is evident that the deceased Rajendra Prasad Keshri, was run over and killed in 1st up loop platform line in front of main gate and half portion of the body (head portion) lying inside the track and the remaining half portion (leg side) outside the track. 5. The claim has been rejected on the ground that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to Rajendra Prasad Keshri while travelling in Train No.3007 UP Howrah-New Delhi Toofan Express on 06.09.2002, has not been proved. 6. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that it is settled law that once an accident took place with the passenger while travelling in a train due to fall from the train or otherwise, Railway has to prove the incident as to whether the incident was due to negligence on the part of passenger. 7. In this regard following judgments have been passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Kerala High Court, explaining the situations: 1. AIR 2004 Kar 215 (Smt. Leelavathamma vs. Union of India) wherein it was clearly held by their Lordships in para-6 and 7 as under:- “6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. The first and the foremost question that falls for consideration is whether the deceased was a passenger on Train No.-284-A between Bhadravathi and Bangalore. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. The first and the foremost question that falls for consideration is whether the deceased was a passenger on Train No.-284-A between Bhadravathi and Bangalore. The Tribunal has answered that question in the negative primarily because the appellant had not been able to produce the ticket purchased by the deceased at the time he boarded the train at Bhadravathi. We find it difficult to subscribe to that view. We say so for two precise reasons. The first is that the deceased was a passenger on the train in question even according to the version of the respondent. In the objections filed on behalf of the respondent, the specific case that was set up by the respondent was that the deceased had boarded Train No.284-A (Fast Passenger) at 23.20 hours at Bhadrawathin Railway Station. The objections go on to state that instead of occupying a seat inside the compartment, the deceased had chosen to travel on the foot board in a state of intoxication. The objections allege that since the deceased was in a state of intoxication, he fell down from the train between Bhadrawathi and Tarikere. It is, therefore, nobody's case that the deceased was not on board of the train at the time of the accident. The admitted case of both the parties is that the deceased was travelling by Train No. 284-A between Bhadravathi and Bangalore on the fateful night and that he had fallen off somewhere between Bhadravathi and Tarikere. Inasmuch as the Tribunal made out a case which neither party had set up, it committed a palpable error. 7. The second and the only other aspect which the Tribunal had adverted to in support of its view was that the appellant had not produced the ticket which the deceased is alleged to have purchased. The non-production of the ticket is not in dispute. That does not, however, tantamount to saying that the deceased was a ticketless traveller. The respondent had also not set up any such case in the objections filed by it. If the respondent's case was that the deceased was travelling without a ticket and was not, therefore, a bona fide passenger, there was nothing which prevented it from setting up that case. The respondent had also not set up any such case in the objections filed by it. If the respondent's case was that the deceased was travelling without a ticket and was not, therefore, a bona fide passenger, there was nothing which prevented it from setting up that case. The absence of any plea in the objections that the deceased was ticketless traveller would, therefore, disentitle the respondent from asserting any such defence at the hearing. That apart just because the train ticket had not been produced could not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the passenger had boarded the train unauthorisedly or was travelling without a ticket. The fact that the deceased had fallen off the train and his body was recovered from the track in an injured condition hours after the incident and transported to Tarikere Railway Station and thereafter subjected to postmortem clearly shows that the body was handled at various stages by different agencies. The loss of the train ticket in the course of its recovery from the site, transportation and post-mortem and other procedures can well be explained and understood. In the totality of these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger on the Bhadravathi-Bangalore train on the fateful night.” 2. Union of India vs. Leelamma reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 385 (Ker.) wherein similar view was taken, which is as under:- (i) Railways Act, 1989, Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A-Compensation-'Untoward incident'- Deceased while tried to alight from compartment, train moved with a jerk, and deceased fell down between train and platform-Such fall of deceased accidental not disputed-No case made out that was a case of suicide or an attempted suicide or on self-inflicted injury-Also no case that injury was sustained due to any criminal act of deceased or any act committed by him in a state of intoxication-Case covered under “untoward incident”-Railways liable to pay Compensation-Tribunal held justified in awarding Compensation-Award upheld. (ii) Railways Act, 1989, Section 124-A-Compensation-Bona fide passenger-Ticket lost in accident-Burden heavily upon Railways to prove that passenger attempted journey without purchasing ticket-Burden not discharged by Railways-Merely because ticket is lost during accident, passenger cannot be labelled as “not a bona fide passenger”. 8. (ii) Railways Act, 1989, Section 124-A-Compensation-Bona fide passenger-Ticket lost in accident-Burden heavily upon Railways to prove that passenger attempted journey without purchasing ticket-Burden not discharged by Railways-Merely because ticket is lost during accident, passenger cannot be labelled as “not a bona fide passenger”. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon Section 124-A {Explanation (ii)} of the Railways Act, 1989, which is quoted hereunder:- “(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”. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 3 SCC 714 . 10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the claimant is entitled to compensation in terms of Railways Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 whereby the statutory amount of compensation has been enhanced from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/-. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has opposed the claim of the appellants. 12. So far as the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in terms of the amended provision of the Railways Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 is concerned, it appears that in the case of Rathi Menon (supra), the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the circumstances and the reasons for payment of enhanced compensation in terms of the amended Rule. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Paras-29 and 30 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon (supra) is quoted hereinbelow for better appreciation:- “29. The unjust consequence resulting from the interpretation which the Division Bench placed can be demonstrated in another plane also. If a person who sustained injury in a railway accident or in an untoward incident was disabled from making an application immediately and he makes the application a few years hence, is he to get the compensation in terms of the money value which prevailed on the date of the accident? Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the application and the claimant approaches the High Court in appeal. Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the application and the claimant approaches the High Court in appeal. As it happens quite often now, some High Courts could take up such an appeal only after the lapse of many years and if the appeal is decided in favour of the claimant after so many years, what a pity if the amount awarded is only in terms of the figure indicated on the date of the accident. 30. From all these, we are of the definite opinion that the Claims Tribunal must consider what the Rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation.” 13. In the present case, from the perusal of the FIR, Final Report as well as other relevant documents including Inquest Report, it is evident that the deceased was run over and killed in 1st up loop platform line in front of main gate and half portion of the body (head portion) lying inside the track and the remaining half portion (leg side) outside the track. 14. So far as the question of platform ticket found from the body of the deceased is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Section 124-A {Explanation (ii)} of the Railways Act, 1989 (as quoted above). 15. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention towards the judgment reported in Smt. Leelavathamma (supra). 16. Thus, once a person is travelling in a train and accident took place with the passenger due to fall from the train and he is a bonafide passenger, onus lies upon the Railway Authorities to prove otherwise. 17. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon (supra) has held that at the time of grant of compensation, prevalent quantum should be granted. 18. At present, quantum has been enhanced to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- vide notification dated 22.12.2016 with effect from 01.01.2017 by the Government of India. 19. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal, filed against the order dated 14.08.2014 in connection with Case No.TAU/RNC/2003/0056, is hereby allowed and the respondent-Railway Authority is directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation to the claimants/appellants with 6% interest from the date of filing the claim application.