JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent. 2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the legality of the Judgment dated 05.05.2017 passed by the Member Judicial, Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench Ranchi in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2016/0022 Check List No. 2902160001 whereby the claim for compensation of the appellants has been rejected by the Tribunal holding that the Pratap Kumar Sinha who died due to his own negligence and thus it is not relevant to discuss that as to whether he was a bona-fide passenger or not. The learned Tribunal further came to the findings that the deceased did not die due to untoward incident and, therefore, the appellants are not entitled for Compensation under section 124-A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994. 3. The facts of the case are that the deceased Pratap Kumar Sinha was a bank employee and was posted at Muri. After having purchased a valid ticket bearing No. N 21059850 boarded into the train, Chopan Express at Ranchi station for going to Muri. He was accompanied by another bank employee i.e. Harshpriya. There was a great rush in the compartment and passengers were jostling and pushing each other to get down at Muri station. In this process the deceased slipped down, and came under the wheels and his both legs were cut down. Then he was shifted to Silli Referral Hospital and thereafter referred to RIMS, Ranchi. He died during treatment at RIMS, Ranchi on 02.02.2015. The claim case has been filed on behalf of the wife and two sons of the deceased Pratap Kumar Sinha. In course of trial, the appellants adduced two witnesses and furnished the documents including the original train ticket i.e. Ext. A4 and final report i.e. Ext. A5. 4. The respondent-Railway appeared in the claim case and opposed the compensation on the ground that the deceased slipped into from the train due to his own negligence and that's why the accident cannot come under the definition of untoward accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal after considering the documents and evidence adduced on behalf of the parties came to the aforesaid findings and rejected the compensation case of the appellants. 5. Therefore, the learned Tribunal after considering the documents and evidence adduced on behalf of the parties came to the aforesaid findings and rejected the compensation case of the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that it is admitted fact that the deceased was travelling in that train having a valid ticket and thus he was a bona-fide passenger of the train No. 18613 and in spite of that the Tribunal did not come to any finding on the point of bona-fide passenger only on the ground that the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased. He further submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the incident was due to negligence of the deceased and the facts remains that the train was overcrowded and the passengers were pushing each other in the train. 6. Mr. Pandey, however, further submitted that the two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellants, who were the eye witnesses and supported the case of the appellants. He further drawn the attention of this Court to the final form i.e Ext. A5 and submits that in the final form it was mentioned that the death was taken place because of accident due to crowd in the train and in that view of the matter, the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants are not entitled for any compensation. To substantiate his arguments, Mr. Pandey relied upon the case of Union of India Versus Reena Devi reported on 2018(2) JBCJ 478 [SC] particularly paragraph no. 16.6 which reads as under: “16.6 We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self-inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.” Mr. Pandey further relied upon the case of Union of India versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 777 (S.C.) particularly on paragraph nos. 10, 11 and 12 which reads as under. “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. 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 vide Kunal Singh vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 524 (Para 9), B. D. Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 193 (Para 12), Transport Corporation of India vs. ESI Corporation (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc. 12. 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. vs. The Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647 (Para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (Para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852 (Para 13), S. M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27 (Para 12) etc.” Referring these judgments learned counsel for the appellants submits that the case is fully covered by the ratio decided in the case of Rina Devi (Supra). 7. Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-railway submits that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the Tribunal as the deceased died due to his own negligence and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the appellants are not entitled for any compensation. Mr. Rakesh further submitted that the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court comes to the conclusion that the train was overcrowded and the passengers were jostling in the train and this fact has also been supported by the two witnesses i.e. AW-1 and AW-2 adduced by the appellants before the Tribunal. Further, final report submitted by the Government Railway Police i.e. Ext. A5 also suggests that the death was due to fall from the train. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon for Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal Act mentioned in clause (c) of the proviso to Section 123 of the Act. A Criminal Act under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent. Alighting from the train when someone has pushed inside the compartment 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 fails even assuming everything in its favour. A Criminal Act under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent. Alighting from the train when someone has pushed inside the compartment 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 fails even assuming everything in its favour. However, this Court finds that the accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clause (a) to (e) of the proviso to section 124-A of the Act. This is very much clear that the present case is covered by the main body of Section 124-A of the Act. It comes out that section 124-A lays down strict liability or no-fault liability in case of railway accident. If a case falls in main body of Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. 9. This Court finds that credence is very much there on the factum of the injury on account of fall from the train, because the place of occurrence is neither near the residence nor the work place of the injured for the accident to be of any form of criminal negligence/self-inflicted injury of wrongly standing on the railway tracks or crossing the railways tracks. 10. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal is therefore, vitiated for non-consideration of these aspects of the matter and accidental falling of the passenger from a train carrying passengers as an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act. 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 to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) with interest of @ 9% from the date of accident till realization. 11. Let the lower court records be sent back to the concerned Tribunal along with a copy of this order passed in this appeal forthwith. 12. No order as to costs.