ORDER : This appeal arises out of Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2014, passed by Railway Claim Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2010/0159 whereby and whereunder claim application filed by the claimant for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation along with interest of 9% from the date of filing for herself and for her son and daughter as the dependents of the deceased on account of death of Kapildeo Prasad has been rejected. 2. The facts as alleged in the claim application preferred by claimant Smt. Uma Devi (wife of the deceased) and her son and daughter are that victim was travelling by Train No. 6 RL Lohardaga – Ranchi passenger from Lohardaga to Argora (Ranchi) on 29.10.2009 with a general second class ticket no. 82208338, dated 29.10.2009. The train was crowded. The deceased was ready to get down at Argora Railway station. He was pushed by someone and fell down from the train inside of railway track. His head was detached from body near the neck. 3. The respondent – Railway filed written statement denying therein claim of the claimants on the ground that deceased was not a bonafide passenger as the alleged ticket was not issued from Lohardaga Station. It has further been alleged that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident and the Guard or driver of the train had also not informed about the same. It has further been contended that the claim application is fit to be dismissed as it does not come under the specific proviso of Railways Act, 1989. 4. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, framed following issues. (I) Whether Kapildeo Prasad, s/o Lt. Dani Ram was a bonafide passenger as alleged? (II) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to Kapildeo Prasad, s/o. Lt. Dani Ram while travelling from Lohardaga to Argora by Train No. 6 RL on 29.10.2009? (III) Whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any? 5. After framing of the issues, the appellants adduced evidences and furnished originals and copies of various documents including journey ticket, fardbayan of Sri Mukesh Kumar, Inquest Report, P.M. Report, post-mortem examination certificate, dead body carrying certificate and newspaper cutting. Respondent did not adduce any oral evidence. However, original/certified copies of the documents were produced which were exhibited by the learned Tribunal. 6. Respondent did not adduce any oral evidence. However, original/certified copies of the documents were produced which were exhibited by the learned Tribunal. 6. After examining records of the case, learned Tribunal discussed the issues in details and held that deceased was travelling with an authority of valid ticket and was therefore a bonafide passenger of the train and as such, Issue No. 1 has been held in favour of the claimant. However, the learned Tribunal has decided Issue No.-II against the claimant holding that the claimants failed to file authentic documents in support of their claim and as such could not prove any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Since Issue No. II has been decided against the claimants and as such, Issue No. III has also been decided against them holding that claimants are not entitled to compensation. 7. While assailing Judgment of learned Tribunal, Mr. Rahul Gupta assisted by Mr. A. Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants/appellants submits that deceased was a bonafide passenger and was coming from Lohardaga to Argora (Ranchi) by Lohardaga-Ranchi Passenger Train after purchasing valid journey ticket. Since train was overcrowded, fellow passengers pushed him due to which he fell down and alleged incident took place leading to his death. Learned counsel submits that valid journey ticket has already been produced and exhibited during trial. Learned counsel submits that it is a case of untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and as such, dependents of the deceased are entitled for compensation under exceptional clause (b) of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Learned counsel submits that Issue No. –II and III has been decided against the claimants only because FIR and Final Report could not be submitted by them. Learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the claimants are not entitled for compensation. Learned counsel submits that it is well settled law that whenever bonafide passenger dies due to injuries sustained in any manner on account of falling from the train, the dependant is entitled to compensation. Neither any negligence on part of the victim nor on part of the railway administration will be looked into as it is piece of beneficial legislation. Learned Tribunal should have adopted liberal approach instead of going through the technical approach and narrow consideration. Neither any negligence on part of the victim nor on part of the railway administration will be looked into as it is piece of beneficial legislation. Learned Tribunal should have adopted liberal approach instead of going through the technical approach and narrow consideration. Learned counsel has further drawn attention of this Court towards the Judgment passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of accident but if the amount prescribed on the date of the award is higher than the amount payable on the date of the accident, then the claimant would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts. In the instant case, incident has taken place much prior to the amended Act came into force on 01.01.2017. As per the amended Act, the compensation in case of death has been enhanced from Rs.4 Lac. to Rs.8 lac. And as such, appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.8 Lac. with interest. 8. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Railway vehemently opposed prayer and submission of the appellants and submits that it is a case where claimants could not establish their claim nor could file necessary documents. There is no eye witness of the incident nor the driver or guard of the train reported about the incident. Liberal approach cannot be taken in such matters where reason of death is not established. The appellants cannot be held to be entitled for any compensation under exceptional clause (b) of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Deceased was not a victim of an untoward incident as defined under Section 124-A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994 and as such appellants are not entitled for any claim even if the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Learned counsel submits that claim application filed by the applicants/appellants has rightly been dismissed. 9. I have heard both sides and perused the records and find force in submission of learned counsel for the appellants. It is a fit case where Judgment of the Tribunal is fit to be interfered. This Court is not satisfied with the view taken by the learned Tribunal deciding Issue No. – II and III against the claimants. 9. I have heard both sides and perused the records and find force in submission of learned counsel for the appellants. It is a fit case where Judgment of the Tribunal is fit to be interfered. This Court is not satisfied with the view taken by the learned Tribunal deciding Issue No. – II and III against the claimants. While arriving at the conclusion, learned Tribunal has not at all appreciated facts and circumstances of the case nor evidences adduced by the claimants. Learned Tribunal, while discussing Issue No. II, has not at all discussed the Issue No. 1. It is an admitted fact that deceased was having valid passenger ticket for journey and was a bonafide passenger. Merely on the ground of technicalities, the family members of the deceased cannot be allowed to suffer in a welfare legislation. 10. There is no dispute that deceased was a bonafide passenger having a valid passenger ticket as Issue No. 1 has already been decided in favour of the claimants. Appellants have tried to make out a case of victim of an untoward incident as defined under Section 124-A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362 , it has been held at para-16.6 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. V. 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. V. 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 an ‘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.” I find that this case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra). Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court holds the incident in question to be an untoward incident and the claimants are entitled to the compensation from Railways. I further find force in submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellants are entitled for higher amount of compensation in view of amended Act. 12. In view of facts and circumstances of the case and as discussed hereinabove, I find that this case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra). Applying the said principles, this Court holds the incident in question to be an untoward incident and the claimants are entitled to the compensation from Railways. With respect to quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has held that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of accident but if the amount prescribed on the date of the award is higher than the amount payable on the date of the accident, then the claimant would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts. It is relevant to quote para-15.4 of the said Judgment. “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. 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 Vs. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714 and Kalandi Charan Sahoo Vs. General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (Civil Appeal No. 5608 of 2017, decided on 25th April, 2017] stands explained accordingly. It is well settled that appeal is the continuation of the Claim Petition and power of the Appellate Court is co-extensive with that of the Claims Tribunal. Similar view has been taken in the case of Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir Vs. Sardar Gurpreet Singh reported in 2014 (10) SCC 702 . Applying the principles laid down in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) in present case, the claimant are held entitled to Rs.8,00,000/- in case of death with effect from 01.01.2017. 13. As a sequel of aforesaid fact and circumstances, judicial pronouncements, this appeal is hereby allowed. The claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 14. Let the lower court record be returned to the court concerned. Appeal allowed.