JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2010/0068 by which the claim of the appellant for seeking the compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was dismissed. 3. The brief facts involved in this case is that the appellant filed an application seeking claim for death of her son namely Sandip Dadel during railway journey. The appellant claimed that the deceased- Sandip Dadel after purchasing a valid ticket, on 21.07.2008, boarded the Vananchal Express train at Ranchi Railway Station. The compartment was crowded. When the deceased was standing near the door of the train there was pressing and pushing by the crowd in the compartment and on account of heavy rush and intense jostling among the passengers, the deceased Sandip Dadel could not hold grip and balance and he accidentally fell down from the running train between Gangaghat and Jonha Railway station at KM 386/18-20 and consequent upon his falling down he was caught under the wheels, his left leg was cut and he succumbed to the injury thus sustained in the said accident. 4. The respondent railways denied any occurrence of any accident on 21.07.2008 between Gangaghat and Jonha Railway station. It was asserted by the respondent railways that the train driver or the guard of the concerned train have not noticed any passenger falling from the train. There was no pulling of chain or stoppage of the train. There was no mention of any ticket number in the Fardbeyan and Inquest report. Hence, the respondent railways pleaded that the accident comes under the exceptions (a) to (e) of Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989. 5. On the basis of rival contention, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:- Issues 1. Whether the deceased Sandip Dadel S/o James Dadel 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 the deceased Sandip Dadel S/o James Dadel, while travelling in Vananchal Express Train on 21.07.2008 between Gangaghat and Jonha Railway Station? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief if any? 6. 2. Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to the deceased Sandip Dadel S/o James Dadel, while travelling in Vananchal Express Train on 21.07.2008 between Gangaghat and Jonha Railway Station? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief if any? 6. In support of her case the claimant examined two witnesses being the appellant herself who is the mother of the deceased and her son Jaydeep Dadel and also proved the postmortem report which was marked as Ext. A-1. 7. From the side of the respondent Railways, the following 11 documents were exhibited:- (i) DSC/RNC’s letter dt.29.7.09 -Exh.R-1 (ii) Fardbayan of Jaydip Dadel - Exh.R-2 (iii) Copy of FIR -Exh.R-3 (iv) Copy of Inquest report –Exh.R-4 (v) Post mortem report –Exh.R-5 (vi) Memo of Ch.Booking Supv./RNC –Exh.R-6 (vii) Memo of Dy.SS/Jonha –Exh.R-7 (viii) Statement of Suresh Kumar dt.6.6.09 –Exh.R-8 (ix) Report of O/c RPF/RNC –Exh.R-9 (x) Form-2 Brief particular –Exh.R-10 (xi) DRM report –Exh.R-11 8. However, no oral testimony was adduced on behalf of the respondent. 9. The Railway Claims Tribunal after considering the materials and evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and he failed to prove no untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and that the deceased Sandip Dadel was not a victim as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and dismissed the claim of the appellant. 10. At the hearing, Mr. D. K. Maltiar the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that the brother of the deceased -A.W.2, was the witness of the deceased purchasing the ticket from Ranchi to Dhanbad and could not properly appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and also submitted that since the provision of compensation under the Railways Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, the Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have given a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one and ought to have directed the respondent to pay the claim amount to the appellant. 11. 11. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 777 (S.C.) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in paragraphs-11 and 12 which read as under:- 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 statue and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524 (Para 9), B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 193 (Para 12), Transport Corporation of India v. ESI Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc”. 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 vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 647 (Para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and others v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 852 (Para 13), S. M. Nilajkar v. Telecom Distt. Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27 (para 12) etc”. (Emphasis Supplied) 12. Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 647 (Para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and others v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 852 (Para 13), S. M. Nilajkar v. Telecom Distt. Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27 (para 12) etc”. (Emphasis Supplied) 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Union of India Versus Bimala and Others reported in 2013 (2) T.A.C. 162 (Bom.) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in para-13 as under:- 13. “Now, the question that crops for consideration in whether failure of the claimant/ passenger to produce valid ticket would lead to a presumption that the passenger met with untoward incident and died was not an authorized passenger or was not holding a valid pass or ticket. To draw such inference, would be to expect from the dependents of the deceased to prove impossible. It is known fact that in such a long journey which consumes more than 15-16 hours, passengers are checked by ticket checkers and certainly more than once. In such circumstances, the fact that the deceased was not detected as passenger travelling without ticket, would give rise to an inference that he was travelling with valid ticket. Whether the deceased has purchased a valid ticket and what happened to that was a fact within his personal knowledge. Having regard to the fact that the provision for compensation in the Railways Act, is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. This has been observed by Their Lordships in case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar cited supra”. (Emphasis Supplied) 13. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari the Learned counsel for the respondent railways submitted that A.W.2 was admittedly not an eye witness to the occurrence and his testimony differs from his statement made in his Fardbeyan which was marked as Exh.R-2 and there is no eye witness to the occurrence that the deceased Sandip Dadel fell down from the Vananchal Express. Admittedly, the A.W.2 being not an eye witness to the occurrence, his testimony can at best be termed as imaginary. Admittedly, the A.W.2 being not an eye witness to the occurrence, his testimony can at best be termed as imaginary. It is further submitted that the evidence in the record is not sufficient to establish any accident more so in view of the overwhelming evidence put forth by the respondent railways through exhibits R-1 to R-11 and the ratio of Union of India Versus Bimala and Others (supra) is not applicable in this case as the deceased allegedly travelled for not more than even two hours. It is also submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the prayer for claim for compensation and he submits that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 14. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, I find that the only point for determination in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to the compensation claimed by her on the basis of the materials available in the record? 15. From the record it is crystal clear that neither the A.W.1 nor the A.W.2 is the eye witness to the occurrence nor they have disclosed the source of information as to how they came to know that the deceased Sandip Dadel was victim of an accidental fall as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. There is no direct evidence in the record as to how the injury was sustained by the deceased. The Ext.-R.11 which is the DRM report, on the other hand shows that this is a case of run over and there is nothing in the record to disbelieve the same. 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish either that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that the death of the deceased occurred because of accidental falling from the Vananchal Express between Gangaghat and Jonha Railway station at KM 386/18-20. The ratio of Union of India Versus Bimala and Others (supra) is not applicable in the facts of this case as is apparent in that case the deceased indisputably travelled in the train for 15-16 hours but in this case the deceased allegedly travelled for less than two hours. Hence the sole point for determination is answered in the negative. The ratio of Union of India Versus Bimala and Others (supra) is not applicable in the facts of this case as is apparent in that case the deceased indisputably travelled in the train for 15-16 hours but in this case the deceased allegedly travelled for less than two hours. Hence the sole point for determination is answered in the negative. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs and the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2010/0068 is confirmed. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent back along with the lower court records to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, forthwith.