ORDER : Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. The present case is arising out of railway accident in which son of the claimant, namely, Rakesh Kumar died on 21.06.2006. It has been claimed that deceased was travelling from Nagpur railway station to Jamshedpur railway station by Gitanjali Express and he has fallen down near Goilkera station and came under the wheels of the train and died on the spot. 3. The claim petition has been filed by the claimant before the Railway Claim Tribunal being case No. OA (IIU) /RNC/ 2007/0023. 4. After hearing the parties and taking evidence, the Railway Claim Tribunal has rejected the claim of the claimant holding that deceased was neither a bonafide passenger nor the case of the appellant is covered under the definition of untoward incident. 5. Being aggrieved by the said award the present appeal has been filed. A counter affidavit dated 08.12.2014 has been filed on behalf of the railway authority. Para-6 and 7 of the said counter affidavit are quoted hereinbelow:- 6. That the respondent Railway filed written statement on 30.03.2011, whereby contends that according to fardbeyan the deceased was travelling in the Sleeper Class Compartment without confirm ticket and that ticket too is not produced, so it is not admitted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 7. That the enquiry report of the Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur, in its finding says that the deceased was reportedly travelling dangerously standing on the open door of the Coach violating safety instructions. The design of the Coach is such that unless someone violates safety instructions, he can in no way fall from a running train, so no case is brought against the Railways. This act of the deceased was gross violation of the safety rules. So this act of the deceased comes under exceptions of Section 124 (A) as self inflicted injury Proviso B of Section 124 (A) says that if the case falls under this condition, then the applicant is not liable to get compensation from the Railways, so the Railway cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. 6. Thus from perusal of counter affidavit alongwith its Annxures annexed therein, it is admitted position that the appellant was travelling in the train and died due to fall from the train. 6. Thus from perusal of counter affidavit alongwith its Annxures annexed therein, it is admitted position that the appellant was travelling in the train and died due to fall from the train. So far as the possession of ticket is concerned, it is the case of the railway authority that deceased was having waiting list ticket, as such; he was not entitled to travel in the train. 7. At this juncture, it is relevant to quote Section 124-A Explanation Part:- “124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents- ………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………… ……… 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.” 8. Thus, the intention of the legislature is cleared that even a person holding platform ticket has been included in the definition of passenger while in the present case deceased was having waiting list ticket as such, the case of the present appellant is on better footing and his case is covered under the definition of passenger. 9. Earlier, Section 82A of the Railways Act, 1890 was regarding liability of railway administration in respect of accident of train carrying passengers. Section 82A of the Railways Act, 1890 is quoted hereinbelow:- “82-A. Liability of Railway Administration in respect of accidents to trains carrying passengers. 9. Earlier, Section 82A of the Railways Act, 1890 was regarding liability of railway administration in respect of accident of train carrying passengers. Section 82A of the Railways Act, 1890 is quoted hereinbelow:- “82-A. Liability of Railway Administration in respect of accidents to trains carrying passengers. –(1) When in the course of working a railway accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers 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 person who has been injured or has suffered loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, not withstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, be liable to pay compensation to the extent set out in subsection (2) and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death and loss, passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods by the passenger and accompanying the passenger in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident. (2) This liability of a railway administration under this section shall in no case exceed fifty thousand rupees in respect of any one person.” 10. Thus, intention of the legislature is clear that whenever any accident takes place with the train, while carrying passengers and due to such railway accident, if any injury is suffered by the passengers, then the passengers are entitled to get compensation. 11. Thus, intention of the legislature is clear that whenever any accident takes place with the train, while carrying passengers and due to such railway accident, if any injury is suffered by the passengers, then the passengers are entitled to get compensation. 11. Now under the new Act, Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which is relevant, is quoted hereinbelow:- “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 of 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.” Thus, if a passenger is victim of untoward accident, he/she is entitled for compensation. The untoward accident has been defined under Section 123C of the Railways Act 1989 is quoted hereinbelow:- “123. Definitions- (a) …………………………………. (b). …………………………………. (i) …………………………………. (ii) …………………………………. (iii) …………………………………. (iv) …………………………………. (c) Untoward incident” means- (1) (i) …………………………………. (ii) …………………………………. (iii) …………………………………. (2) The accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 14. Thus, from perusal of the new section, it is evident that now legislative intent has changed for grant of compensation from railway accident. Definitions- (a) …………………………………. (b). …………………………………. (i) …………………………………. (ii) …………………………………. (iii) …………………………………. (iv) …………………………………. (c) Untoward incident” means- (1) (i) …………………………………. (ii) …………………………………. (iii) …………………………………. (2) The accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 14. Thus, from perusal of the new section, it is evident that now legislative intent has changed for grant of compensation from railway accident. Now, if a passenger suffers accident from train is entitled for compensation, even if no accident takes place with railway. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 carves out exceptions that a passenger is not entitled for compensation (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. 15. Thus, exceptions available in Section 124A of the Railway Act shall be only ground for non payment of compensation and no other grounds. 16. The judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Rani Devi vrs. Union of India in F.A. No. 104/2012 dated 08.09.2017. Para-6 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “6. In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 , a lady fell down while trying to enter the train and was run over by the train. Railways contended that the deceased was negligent and there was no fault of Railways. The Supreme Court held that Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers". Hence, it is an "untoward incident" as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. 11. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers". Hence, it is an "untoward incident" as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. 11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers", the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred......... 12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation........................... xxx xxx xxx 14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. Hence, in our opinion, the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression. xxx xxx xxx 17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.” 17. A person, who is having waiting list ticket, is travelling near the gate is common, but it is the duty of the railway authority to stop such person to travel in such a manner. The lack of facilities, numbers of trains are the main reason of overcrowding in the train. The railway authority is also duty bound to stop such overcrowding either by providing more trains or by stopping the passengers from travelling beyond the capacity of the coaches. 18. Once the Railway Authority has given green single to the overcrowded train, it is the duty of the railway authority to look after the safety of the passengers. If any untoward accident takes place with any passenger by the overcrowded train, which has been allowed to run by the Railway Authority, passengers of such overcrowded train are entitled to get compensation under law. 19. This Court finds that the son of the claimant was a bonafide passenger and due to over rush he died by falling from the train which is covered under the definition of untoward incident 20. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rathi Memon vs. Union of India reported in 2001 (2) TAC 250 (S.C.) in which, it has been held that the claim amount will be payable as per the Schedule which is prevalent at the time of pronouncing the order. The said amount has been enhanced by the notification dated 22.12.2016 w.e.f. 01.01.2017. 21. Accordingly, appellant is directed to make payment of Rs.8,00,000/-alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of filing of application i.e. from 22.01.2007. 22. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.