JUDGMENT : 1. This Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 03.08.2015, passed by learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2013/0065 whereby and whereunder, learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the claim petition. 2. The case of the appellants as per the claim petition is that on 24.11.2012, the husband of the appellant No.1, Himau Akhtar was travelling with a valid ticket from Bhaga to Kharkhari by 422 Down Chakradharpur-Gomoh Passenger Train and fall down from the train at Kharkhari Station. In the meantime, the train started moving and he was crushed to death. The ticket was recovered from the pocket of the deceased at the time of post-mortem and handed over to the GRP. The appellant has claimed compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs with interest from the date of filing application for herself and minor sons. 3. The respondent in the written reply has given a formal and evasive denial of all the allegations made by the claimant. Further it was stated that it was a case of self-inflicted injury due to the negligent act of the deceased for which no compensation is payable. The application is put to strict proof that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Later, the DRM’s report based on enquiry to be done under ‘The Railway Passengers (Manners of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 was filed. 4. The parties appeared before the Tribunal and were heard. After examining the witnesses and perusing the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal framed the followings issues:- (I) Whether Himau Akhtar 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 him while travelling by Train No. 422 from Bhaga to Kharkhari on 24.11.2012 ? (III) Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any? 5. Learned Tribunal after perusal of the records and examining the evidences and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to a finding that the applicant is not entitled to compensation under Section 124 –A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994 though the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train in question and the death of the husband of the claimant does not fall within the purview of untoward incident. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that it is admitted fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the said train and possessed the valid ticket, which was recovered from the possession of the deceased at the time of post-mortem. The only dispute is that learned Tribunal while passing the Award has considered the case not as an untoward incident rather as negligent act on the part of the deceased. Learned counsel places heavily reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, reported (2018) 2 JBCJ 478 (SC) and submits that only on the ground of negligent act, the compensation cannot be denied and the deceased cannot be made disentitlement to the compensation. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent justifies the impugned award and contended that there is no illegality in the impugned Award. Learned counsel further argues though the deceased was having a valid ticket and bona fide passenger but the same is being disputed by the Railways. 8. Be that as it may, in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and after perusal of the records, it appears that the deceased was having a valid ticket and thus was a bona fide passenger. The ground for rejection of the claim is not tenable in the eyes of law. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2018) 2 JBCJ 478 (SC) wherein it has been held that:- “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, reported in 2017 (13) SCALE 652 , 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, reported in 2017 (13) SCALE 652 , 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 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. 9. 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 in view of the recent notification of the Railways dated 22.12.2016, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.8.00 lakh from Railways. Needless to say that the entire amount of compensation shall be released to the Claimant in view of provisions of law, being satisfied with the documents as furnished by the legal heirs in support of his claim and the entire amount shall be paid to the Claimant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the compensation amount is not paid within the said period, the same shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. Resultantly, this Appeal stands allowed. 11. Office is directed to return the lower Court records to the Court below at the earliest. 12. As a sequel to the disposal of the present Appeal, pending I.As. if any, also stand dispose of.