JUDGMENT : Manish Pitale, J. By this appeal, the appellants (original claimants) have challenged judgment and order dated 10.05.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby a claim application filed by them seeking compensation in the context of death of husband of appellant No.1 in an untoward incident that took place on 01.07.2013, has been rejected. 2. The appellants filed the aforesaid claim application stating that on 01.07.2013 the husband of appellant No.1 was travelling from Selu to Purna on a valid journey ticket by train bearing No.17057, (Devgiri Express) and he fell down at the Purna Railway Station due to which he suffered injuries, resulting in his death. On a report given by an employee of the railways, stating that the victim had fallen down from the train and suffered injuries resulting in his death, the incident was recorded and inquest proceedings were done. Personal search of the body of the deceased revealed that a valid train journey ticket was found on the body. On this basis, the said application was moved and compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, as was admissible at that point of time, was claimed by the appellants before the Tribunal. 3. The claim of the appellants was denied by the respondent and it was contended that the facts as they emerged from the material on record demonstrated that it was in fact the victim, who was responsible for the incident and that therefore, the appellants were not entitled for any compensation. 4. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order, taking into consideration the material on record and the contentions raised on behalf of the rival parties, particularly in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment and order, came to a conclusion that the victim was guilty of rashness and criminal negligence, because he was alighting from a running train and therefore, the appellants were not entitled for grant of compensation. Reference was made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that the incident in the present case could not be classified as an 'untoward incident' under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 and on that basis the claim application was dismissed. 5. Reference was made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that the incident in the present case could not be classified as an 'untoward incident' under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 and on that basis the claim application was dismissed. 5. Smt. S.V. Salvankar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the findings rendered by the Railway Claims Tribunal were unsustainable, because the finding of rashness and criminal negligence attributed to the victim was not based on any material on record. It was submitted that the report given by employee of the respondent itself regarding falling down of the victim from the train resulting in injuries, was sufficient to indicate that the present case was certainly a case of an 'untoward incident', as defined under the said Act. It was submitted that the Tribunal could not have rejected the claim of the appellants in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2018) AIR SC 2362, wherein principle of 'no fault liability' was invoked in such cases and it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the principle of 'contributory negligence' would not apply to a claim in the nature that was raised by the appellants herein and it could not be rejected by holding that the injuries suffered by the victim were self-inflicted injuries. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that when an 'untoward incident' took place, the compensation payable was Rs.4,00,000/-, but as per the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants were entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in view of notification dated 22/12/2016 issued by the Central Government enhancing the quantum of compensation from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-. 6. On the other hand Mr. N.P. Lambat, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the material on record justified the findings rendered by the Tribunal and that if the victim had attempted to alight from the running train and he has suffered injuries, the liability to pay compensation could not be foisted on the respondent. 7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material on record. 7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material on record. As noted above, the reasons for rejecting the claim of the appellants in the present case, in the impugned order it is found in paragraphs 13 to 16. The thrust of the reasoning given by the Tribunal is that the facts of the present case demonstrate that the victim was negligent or rashness and criminal negligence and that therefore, no compensation is payable in the present case. Difference between criminal negligence and routine negligence was analyzed and it was held that in the present case the victim was indeed guilty of criminal negligence and therefore, no compensation was payable. 8. A perusal of the said portion of the impugned order shows that although there is a discussion on the concept of criminal negligence and routine negligence, there is no discussion or analysis on any evidence or material on record to reach a finding that the victim in the present case was indeed guilty of criminal negligence or rashness, in order to deprive the appellants of grant of compensation. In the aforesaid judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration a number of earlier judgments to analyze the concept of burden of proof in respect of negligence and situations in which exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the aforesaid Act could be invoked for depriving claimants of compensation. 9. It is categorically held in paragraphs 16.6 of the aforesaid judgment that the concept of 'contributory negligence' cannot be invoked in such cases, which are essentially based on 'no fault theory'. It is categorically held that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an untoward incident entitling a victim to compensation and it will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A of the said Act, merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor. This, read with definition of 'untoward incident' in Section 123(c)(2) of the said Act makes it very clear that in the present case, the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim filed by the appellant. The said provision clearly states that an untoward incident means accidental falling of any passenger from train carrying passengers. This, read with definition of 'untoward incident' in Section 123(c)(2) of the said Act makes it very clear that in the present case, the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim filed by the appellant. The said provision clearly states that an untoward incident means accidental falling of any passenger from train carrying passengers. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the victim was travelling in a train carrying passengers and that said passenger was having a valid journey ticket which was found on his body after the incident. Therefore, it is found that the impugned Judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable. 10. As regards the quantum of compensation payable to appellants, it is made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aforesaid issue in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) that the benefit of the subsequent notification enhancing the quantum of compensation to Rs.8,00,000/- would be available even when the incident in question had taken place prior to the said notification. The only rider that has been added by the Hon'ble Supreme court is that if the quantum of compensation payable along with interest for an incident prior to issuance of the notification is less than Rs.8,00,000/- then an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- would be payable and that such amount would not carry any interest. This is made clear in paragraph 15.4 of the aforesaid Judgment, which reads as follows :- "15.4 Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon, (2001) AIR SC 1333 (supra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) stands explained accordingly. The 4-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo, (1976) AIR SC 222 (supra) holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon, (2001) AIR SC 1333 (supra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) stands explained accordingly. The 4-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo, (1976) AIR SC 222 (supra) holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given." 11. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned Judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The claim application filed by the appellants is allowed and it is held that the appellants are entitled to grant of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent shall deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation in the account of the appellants, as per the claim application within a period of four months from today. If there is any delay in depositing of the said amount within aforesaid stipulated period of time, the said amount will carry interest @9.00% per annum. No order as to costs.