JUDGMENT : Subhasis Dasgupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1st May, 2007 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench granting compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to claimant with direction upon the railway authority to liquidate the amount within two months from the date of order failing which the award shall carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till realisation. 2. The Tribunal allowed the claim case on the ground that the incident under reference was within the meaning of "untoward incident" but not a simple case of run over, while crossing the railway track carelessly and further held that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger having valid ticket at the time of undertaking journey in passenger's train. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant railway authority in course of hearing urged basically two points, one alleging the incident to be a pure case of run over, not covered by "untoward incident" together with approach adopted by the Tribunal in deciding the claim case after observing therein that the possibility of falling down from a moving train and subsequently being hit by another up train on adjacent line, could not be ruled out, was not the perfect appreciation of the evidence, adduced in this case and the point controverting that since there was no recovery of a ticket from the dead-body of the deceased, the deceased could be construed to be a bone fide passenger at the relevant point of time. 4. Learned advocate for the claimant/respondent supporting the order of Railway Claims Tribunal awarding compensation argued with all fairness that there left nothing to interfere with the observation made by the learned Tribunal being based on evidence. 5. Since the points urged to be on the settled proposition of law, the case was taken up for hearing upon consideration of long pendency of this appeal. 6. Each of the circumstances germane to the incident under reference was considered by the Railway Claims Tribunal while granting compensation. However, some crucial facts may be referred here for the decision of this appeal, which are of highest significance. 7. 6. Each of the circumstances germane to the incident under reference was considered by the Railway Claims Tribunal while granting compensation. However, some crucial facts may be referred here for the decision of this appeal, which are of highest significance. 7. The deceased, Tapan Bhttacharya being accompanied by his younger brother, Arun Bhattacharya in course of travelling from Bally to Rishra Station on 19th February, 2004 in an over crowed train standing near the exit and entry gate of the compartment, suddenly fell down from the moving train having lost his balance following a sudden jerk in the train when the train was about to reach Rishra Station. As deceased Tapan Bhattacharya fell down on adjacent railway tract, so he was dashed by another moving local UP-M241 Howrah-Burdwan bound train causing him to suffer death on the spot with his one hand cut off by the wheels of the said train. The claimant being mother of the deceased son initiated the claim case under Section 124-A of the Railway Act claiming compensation for the loss occasioned to her by reason of death of her son. Deceased victim was 43 years old at the time of his death. 8. The appellant, railway authority contested the claim by filing written statement denying that incident to be an untoward incident and further the victim to be a bona-fide railway passenger at the material point of time. 9. Railway authority generated a memo by station master of Seoraphuli following receipt of a message of incident from station master Rishra revealing the dead-body to be lying on reverse line between KM-16/07 and 16/09 at level crossing gate No. 3-B, near Rishra station. Police held inquest over the dead-body and subjected the dead-body to go for autopsy. 10. Complainant/Respondent sought to establish her case by examining two witnesses, one of which was the complainant herself, being mother of the deceased son, and another is the younger brother, an eye witness to the incident. For and on behalf of appellant/railway authority, no witness was examined, though denial of the incident was the only basis to repudiate the claim case for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 11. Admittedly PW-1 is the post occurrence witness, while PW-2 is the eye witness to the incident. For and on behalf of appellant/railway authority, no witness was examined, though denial of the incident was the only basis to repudiate the claim case for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 11. Admittedly PW-1 is the post occurrence witness, while PW-2 is the eye witness to the incident. PW-2 described in his evidence providing the circumstances he had to view the incident, and the manner in which his deceased elder brother had accidentally fallen down from a moving train from a crowded train following a sudden jerk in the train. PW-2 thus categorically mentioned in his evidence that due to sudden jerk and pressure of Rishra bound passengers, his deceased elder brother lost his balance and accidentally fell down from the running train. The chain was attempted to pull down, but the same ultimately proved to be an abortive approach, as the chain pulling system was out of order. PW-2 rushed to the spot after his deceased elder brother had fallen down, and found there dead with his one hand cut. PW-2 could learn thereafter that another up coming train had dashed his brother after he had fallen down on the adjacent railway track. The incident was immediately reported to station master Rishra, but in turn conveyed the same to station master Searophuli. Though PW-2 revealed the circumstances in his testimony as to how his elder brother had fallen down from a moving train accidentally, but admittedly he had not seen his brother to be run over by an up coming train. One Kalipada Chakraborty had his occasion to travel in the same compartment along with the victim, but he could not be examined. 12. Argument was focused at the instance of appellant/railway authority that the Tribunal Judge ought to have disbelieved the incident before describing the same to be an untoward incident, keeping in mind that the eye witness, PW-2 could not disclose the name of the person, from home he could gather the information that his elder brother had been run over by up coming train, and further that Kalipada Chakraborty, a co-passenger having had his occasion to travel as a co-passenger with the deceased victim at the relevant point of time, could not be produced in support of the claim case. It was also contended by the railway authority that in the absence of any direct evidence linking the accidental fall of the deceased from running train with that of deceased being run over by UP Howrah-Burdwan train, sequential events went un-established, without which the Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation. 13. The police report filed after investigation showed that deceased suffered his death being run over by M241 up Howrah-Buardwan local train. The accidental fall from a moving train in course of undertaking rail journey was even transpired during police investigation. The credibility of police inquest PM report and the police report submitted after investigation could not be doubted during the trial of instant case. 14. An attempt was sought to be established by railway authority in order to repudiate the claim case describing the incident to be a run over simply upon seeing a level crossing gate near the recovery point of dead-body. The deceased victim had his ordinary residence situated within PS-Serampore. No possible explanation was offered by the railway authority/appellant, while denying the claim case, that the deceased had his occasion to access the level crossing gate. Unless the situation conducive is established by producing cogent evidence, the case of the appellant based on run over, while crossing the railway gate carelessly is far from satisfactory. 15. From the impugned judgment it reveals that learned counsel representing the Railway authority before the Railway Claims Tribunal admitted, submitting that he had no documents to produce in order to reveal that efforts were made from Railway authority to ascertain that the victim had been run over by 241 UP Howrah-Burdwan local train, not having fallen down from a moving train. The sequential events, as alleged to have been not established by the appellant was attempted to have been established upon re-constructuring some events from the given set of facts. The memo generated by the station master Seoraphuli showed that it was prepared at 7.55 PM on 19.02.2004 after receiving a message from station master Rishra, revealing a dead-body to have been run over and lying dead on Railway tract near Rishra Railway station. Presumably the station master of Rishra conveyed the same message to station master Seoraphuli, what had been seen and /or experienced by some employee attached with the station master's office. Presumably the station master of Rishra conveyed the same message to station master Seoraphuli, what had been seen and /or experienced by some employee attached with the station master's office. The probable persons working under the Railway authority who have had sufficient occasion either to view the incident, complained of under reference, or to know about the incident went unexamined in this case leaving space to attract adverse presumption available under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act against the appellant/railway authority for not producing the material witnesses, who could have been produced most conveniently to unveil the truth behind the death, suffered by the deceased. Upon re-construturing the events, the Tribunal Judge proceeded to hold that the victim had been run over by 241 UP train, near level crossing gate of Rishra, and the accidental fall of the victim from the running train obviously occurred within a gap of few minutes of around 7.30 PM on 19.2.2004. The deceased being run over by M241 UP Howrah-Burdwan bound local train subsequent to his falling down from a moving train in course of his undertaking journey from Bally to Searampore left reasonable space for the memo to be generated by station master Seoraphuli at 7.55 PM on 19.2.2004. It was thus a most reasonable, inference reached by the Tribunal Judge upon reconstructing the events leading to the death of the deceased subsequent to falling down of deceased from a moving train. In the background, as above, the Tribunal Judge observed putting much emphasis that in a station like Howrah during evening, where trains run at the interval of every few minutes, and where the Railway tract are located in close proximity to each other, the probability of falling down of the deceased from a moving train and thereafter being hit by another train moving on an adjacent line, was not extraneous consideration, contrary to real state of affairs, and should not be allowed to be faulted with, unless cogent evidence or convincing document, contrary to that established in the instant case, is shown to exist by the appellant/Railway authority. Inference reached by the Tribunal Judge on this score in the given set of facts cannot be construed to be suffered by infirmity being an outcome of consideration of extraneous materials, not pertaining to the text. 16. Inference reached by the Tribunal Judge on this score in the given set of facts cannot be construed to be suffered by infirmity being an outcome of consideration of extraneous materials, not pertaining to the text. 16. From the testimony of PW-2, it appears that the ticket of the deceased was recovered at the time of holding post mortem examination. The ticket being stained with blood, the same was burnt to ashes considering the same to be inauspicious giving regard to the value of Hindu Customs. True it is that no Railway ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased as well the from spot, where the dead-body of the deceased was found to exist. The argument as advanced for on behalf of the appellant/Railway authority is that since there was no recovery of ticket by seizure list either from the dead-body recovered or from the vicinity of dead-body recovered, learned Judge should have disbelieved the case of accidental falling down from a moving train holding that the deceased victim was not a bona-fide passenger with valid ticket. 17. With the production of a report from Railway authority, it was sought to be established that Railway ticket bearing No. 13508 and 13509 was issued on sale from Bally Railway station on 19.2.04 between 16.00 hrs to 24.00 hrs. The fact of having purchased a ticket at the time of undertaking train journey was asserted by the PW-2 in his testimony, the credibility of which could not be shaken to doubt in evidence. 18. It would be profitable her to refer relevant paragraph of a decision of Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Rani Devi, (2018) 3 TAC 26 (SC) which may be mentioned as hereunder: "17.4 We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bone fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bone fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly." 19. Since the initial burden of claim, as asserted in the claim petition with regard to the accidental falling down of deceased from a moving train so as to make out a case to be covered within the meaning of untoward incident, as contemplated under Section 123 (c) of Railways Act having been successfully discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts in application of the provisions Section 101 of the Evidence Act, the burden got automatically shifted to Railway authority, which was to be necessarily discharged by furnishing cogent evidence at the instance of railway authority. 20. As has already discussed that the probable persons having had their opportunity to view the incident or to know about the incident could not be examined by Railway authority in order to discharge the onus having been shifted on the Railway authority for successful discharge of onus, so the shifted onus of Railway authority went un-discharged. 21. It is trite law that the statement of witness, if found cogent and reliable, can be accepted without any corroboration. It is not the quantity, but the quality of the witness matters much. Though the person from whom PW-2 could learn about the incident of being run over as regards his elder bother after the deceased had fallen down from a moving train in his presence, and further Kalipada Chakraborty not being produced during the trial, but the same would not ip so facto sufficient to absolve the liability of Railway authority from paying compensation to claimant. What is more important in the given set of facts is whether the evidence of PW-2 is probable and trustworthy being reliable or not. Since eye witness being elder brother of the deceased accompanied the deceased at the time of undertaking journey, we are of the considered view that in the absence of any infirmity, discrepancy or inconsistency in his version, his evidence must be taken to be reliable and probable also. 22. Since eye witness being elder brother of the deceased accompanied the deceased at the time of undertaking journey, we are of the considered view that in the absence of any infirmity, discrepancy or inconsistency in his version, his evidence must be taken to be reliable and probable also. 22. The Railway accident involving 'untoward incident' was occurred on 19.2.2004 when the liability of the Railway authority had already arisen before the amendment was brought in. 23. The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 provide a schedule prescribing the amount of compensation to be payable in respect of the death and injuries. During the pendency of the matter by way of amendment, amount of compensation which was earlier at the level of Rs. 4,00,000/- in case of death, was raised to Rs. 8,00,000/-. 24. The award granting compensation was made on 1.5.2007. The appeal being continuation of lis, the same needs to be decided in the light of the principle laid down in Union of India vs. Rani Devi (supra) as regards the amount of compensation because herein this case the accident had occurred before the amendment was put in place. The amount of compensation should be Rs. 4,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of accident till the disbursement of the award subject to maximum of Rs. 8,00,000/- in the light of the principle laid down in Union of India vs. Rani Devi (supra). The Court makes it clear that if there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the schedule as on the date of the award, the higher of two figures would be the measure of compensation. The respondent/Railway authority is directed to pay the compensation to the extent shown hereinabove within 60 days from the date of delivery of order failing which the appellant/claimant would be at liberty to put the award into execution. 25. In the result, the appeal is without any merits. The findings reached by the Appellate Court while granting compensation must go unaltered. The appeal fails. 26. Parties are at liberty to approach the Tribunal, where the money is said to have been deposited in terms of the order passed in this instant appeal. 27. Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order in the light of the observation made herein in this instant appeal. 28. The appeal fails. 26. Parties are at liberty to approach the Tribunal, where the money is said to have been deposited in terms of the order passed in this instant appeal. 27. Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order in the light of the observation made herein in this instant appeal. 28. Urgent certified copy of this order if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. I agree - Harish Tandon, J.