JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent. 2. The appellants, who is applicants in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/34/2016 is aggrieved of Judgment dated 10.02.2017 passed by the learned Member (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by which the Tribunal dismissed the application of the applicant. 3. The applicants filed the claim petition under the Railway Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. 4. The appellants are sons of deceased Ankur Gorai, who died on 4.3.2014 due to untoward incident. 5. The facts of the case are that the deceased Ankur was travelling by train from Kalubathan station to Burdwan on 4.3.2014 along with Shakutala Mandal, Urmila Gorai and Dropdi Gorai. From Burdwan they had to go to Mayapur temple for Darshan of God Radha Krishna by Bus. Ankur Gorai fell down accidentally from running train near Panagarh Station resulting his death whereupon the subject claim petition was filed. In one computerized ticket four tickets were purchased. 6. The respondent/railway contended before the Tribunal that deceased was not a bona-fide passenger of the train, in question, in which the deceased was said to be travelling. It was also argued that there was no evidence of fall from the train and it was not due to untoward incident. 7. The Tribunal has held that the Journey Ticket (Exhibit. A10) which is available is in damaged condition. However, it transpires that it was issued upto Burdwan. The train no. 63552 - Dhanabd Asansol MEMU terminates at Asansol and it does not run thereafter. The companions who were travelling along with the deceased were not examined as witnesses to prove that the deceased died in an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Act. The correct train number by which the deceased was travelling had not been disclosed. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the application. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant stressed following points before this Court:- (i) The first argument was that as per the Final Report submitted by the Government Railway police one railway ticket no. 68904030 was found and the cause of death is shown due to fall down from the running train. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the application. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant stressed following points before this Court:- (i) The first argument was that as per the Final Report submitted by the Government Railway police one railway ticket no. 68904030 was found and the cause of death is shown due to fall down from the running train. (ii) The deceased was the bona-fide passenger which is apparent from the torn tickets seized and this fact has been also taken note in the Judgment. (iii) The report of Deputy Station Manager, Panagarh suggest that the body has been received. The report is Exhibit A1. (iv) No evidence has been lead by the Railway. 9. Counsel appearing for railway-respondent submitted that there is no illegality in the Judgment of the Tribunal. The appellants have not been able to provide the correct train number and whether the death was due to fall from train or not had not been established. He argued that there is no merit in the appeal which is fit to be dismissed. 10. Having heard learned counsels of both the sides this court finds that it cannot be disputed that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger because admittedly during the recovery of the body of the deceased the ticket was in fact recovered by the Railway Officials themselves which is marked as Exhibit A 10.The body was lying unattended till the same was reported by porter Sri P. Sen and therefore, it cannot be said that the ticket had been planted on the body. Therefore, it is proved beyond all doubt that the deceased in fact had purchased a railway ticket and was travelling as the railway ticket making him a bona-fide passenger. 11. The only issue then remains as to whether the deceased in fact fell from a train or not? The Final Investigation Report of the Police which showed that deceased had fallen from a train. I completely agree with this finding and conclusion more so because the present case is not one of those cases where the deceased was living in and around the area or was having an office/work place in or around the area where the death by untoward incident took place. Thus, it is crystal clear that the death would have to be accidental and because of a fall from train. Thus, it is crystal clear that the death would have to be accidental and because of a fall from train. The provisions of Section 123 (C) and Section 124-A have been enacted as social/beneficial legislation for social welfare. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, (2008) 9 SCC 527 held that since the provision for compensation in the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. 13. Sub Section 29 of Section 2 of the Act defines “passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123 (C) of the Act defines “untoward incident to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A of the Act states as under: 124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident - 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 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. (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.” 14. Explanation - For the purposes of this section "passenger" includes:- (i) a railway servant on duty. (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.” 14. It is apparent that accident in which the deceased Ankur Gorai died is clearly not covered by the proviso to Section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124-A. This is very much clear that the case in hand is covered by the main body of Section 124-A of the Act. Thus, it comes out that Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. If a case falls in main body of Section it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jameela vs. Union of India, 2010 (12) SCC 443 at para 12 as under: “12. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railways, that the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the Railways itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian Trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124-A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the Railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.” 16. At the first blush the argument as raised on behalf of the respondent with reference to train left at particular time and terminates at Asansol railway station and it does not run thereafter. However, considering the balance of probabilities as per which civil cases have to be decided, the deceased in fact quite clearly had died on account of a fall from a train in view of the documents of the respondents being Exhibits A-1 and A-8. However, considering the balance of probabilities as per which civil cases have to be decided, the deceased in fact quite clearly had died on account of a fall from a train in view of the documents of the respondents being Exhibits A-1 and A-8. The deceased may not have died by fall from the specific train as stated in the Claim Petition, however, it has to be held that he died on account of fall from train in view of above two documents itself. 17. Credence is very much there of the factum of death on account of fall from a train, because the place of death is neither near the residence nor the work place of the deceased for the accident to be of any form of criminal negligence/self inflicted injury of wrongly standing on the railway tracks or crossing of the railway tracks. 18. In light of the above discussions, this Court finds that the finding of the learned Tribunal is, therefore, vitiated for non-consideration of material like Exhibits A-1 and A-8. The Tribunal, therefore, was wrong in not allowing the claim petition of the appellants. Therefore, the Judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is allowed and respondent railway is directed to pay compensation in terms of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rule 1990 i.e. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh) with interest @ rate of 9% from the date of accident till realization. 19. Let the lower court records be sent back to the concerned Tribunal along with order passed in this appeal forthwith. 20. No order as to costs.