ORDER : This appeal arises out of Order/Award dated 23.08.2013, passed by Railway Claim Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No. OA(IIU)/ RNC/ 2010/ 0182 whereby and where under claim application filed by the appellant has been partly allowed. 2. Claim application has been filed by applicant Likhoni Tudu, mother of the victim – deceased Anil Murmu claiming compensation of Rs.4 lacs. with interest. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that on 29.10.2007, the applicant /appellant was travelling with her son late Anil Murmu by Train No.61 UP EMU Asansol Baidnath Dham from Jamtara Railway Station to Madhupur. He fell down at Joramo Railway Station, when trying to re-board the train. The appellant in support of her application, had filed copy of privilege pass, Fardbayan, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report. 3. The respondent – Railway filed written statement denying therein claim of the claimant and inter alia stated that it is not admitted that the incident was untoward incident as defined in Section 123 of the Railway Act. That the enquiry report reveals that he slipped from the running train due to his own fault and as such, very comfortably it can be said that it was a case of negligence on the part of the deceased. 4. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, framed following issues. (1) Whether the deceased Anil Murmu, S/o late Devan Murmu was a bona fide passenger ? (2) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railway Act, 1989 occurred to the Anil Murmu, S/o late Devan Murmu while travelling in Train No. 61 UP EMU Asansol Baidnath Dham on 29.10.2007 at Joramo Railway Station ? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any? 5. After examining records of the case and hearing the parties, learned Tribunal decided the Issue No.1 against the claimant and held that deceased was not a bona fide passenger and not having valid ticket. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the deceased and claimant observing therein that in view Hon’ble Apex Court’s interpretation of Section 123 (C) of the Railways Act, 1989, the incident of Anil Murmu, falling down while trying to re-board a train, will be covered under the definition of ‘Untoward Incident’ as defined in Section 123 (C) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Issue No.3 was also decided in favour of the claimant in which it has been held that applicant is entitled to compensation and Rs. 2.00 lacs compensation is considered adequate for the applicant. Hence, the respondent-Railway was directed to pay Rs. 2.00 lacs to the applicant- Likhoni Tudu. However, if the amount is not released by the respondent within two months from the date of pronouncement of this decree, it will carry an interest of 9 % from the date of the judgment, till the date of actual payment. The correctness of the order dated 23.08.2013 has been assailed in the instant appeal. 6. While assailing Judgment of learned Tribunal, Mrs. Chaitali Chaterjee Sinha, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Vijay Shanker Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant/appellant submits that deceased was a bonafide passenger. Learned counsel further argues that learned Tribunal has no authority to pass an order holding the compensation amount to be adequate against the provisions of law of Section 3 of the Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. Learned counsel for the appellant places heavy reliance towards the unreported judgment passed by this Court in case of Natwar Singh Vs. Union of India in M.A. No.34 of 2013 (order dated 26.03.2014) and in case of Gita Devi @ Geeta Devi Vs. Union of India in M.A. No. 165 of 2014 vide order dated 05.02.2018. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372 , further, in the case of Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 714 . Learned counsel for the appellant further places heavy reliance towards the recent judgment in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2018) 2 JBCJ 478 (SC) 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. As per the amended Act, the compensation in case of death has been enhanced from Rs.4 Lac. to Rs.8 lac. 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, applicant/appellant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.8 Lac. 7. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha and Mr. Ganesh Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Railway vehemently oppose prayer and submission of the appellant and submits that claimant is not entitled for a single farthing as deceased was not a bonafide passenger and not having a valid ticket. Learned counsel further argues that the instant appeal itself is not maintainable as the decreetal amount has already been received by the claimant and as such, she is stopped from challenging the same. Learned counsel further submits that a sympathetic view has already been taken by the learned Tribunal as it has already awarded Rs. 2.00 lacs to the claimant/appellant and appellant is not entitled for any further amount by which she has to be compensated and as such, this appeal ought to have been dismissed. 8. Heard both the sides and perused the records as well as LCR, it appears that the deceased was having a valid ticket, by way of pass, which is not in dispute. When the deceased was having a valid pass, there is no requirement of valid ticket and pass was not ever disputed and as such, even Issue No.1 ought to have been decided in favour of the claimant/appellant. As far as other issue regarding ‘Untoward Incident’, is concerned rightly it has been held by the learned Tribunal that the same is in favour of the appellant as the same has already been set at rest in case of Union of India Vs.Prabhakarn Vijaya Kumar, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 by the Hon’ble Apex Court therein giving the interpretation of Section 123 (C) of the Railways Act, 1989 “ 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, it should receive a liberal and under interpretation and not a narrow and technical one”. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and under interpretation and not a narrow and technical one”. Thus, in view of the interpretation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, very comfortably it can be said that the incident of Anil Murmu, falling down while trying to board a train, will be covered under the definition of “ Untoward Incident” as defined in Section 123 (C) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. 9. The claimant is mainly aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs, which was considered adequate by the learned Tribunal. It is settled principle of law that Tribunal has no right to reduce the compensation amount if the death of the deceased has occurred and covered under the provisions of Clause C of Section 123 of the Railway Act, 1989. Therefore, the issue to be decided in the instant appeal is that as to whether it is discretion of the Tribunal to decide the quantum of amount of compensation in case of Untoward Incident? 10. This Court is of the view that when it has been held by the learned Tribunal that it is case of Untoward Incident, falling within the ambit of Section 123 (C) of the Railways Act, 1989, it is not open to the learned Tribunal to reduce the amount of compensation which is the the right of the appellant/claimant as per the Statutory Provisions. Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 is quoted as under : 3. Amount of Compensation –(1) The amount of compensation payable in respect of death for injuries, shall be as specified in the Schedule. (2) The amount of compensation payable for an injury not specified in Part II or Part III of the Schedule but which, in the opinion of the Claims Tribunal, is such as to deprive a person of all capacity to do any work, shall be Rs. Eight lakhs substituted by G.S.R. 1165 (E), dated 22.12.2016, for ‘rupees four lakhs’ (w.e.f. 01.01.2017). 11. The similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 714 , para 29 & 30 of which reads as under :- 29. Eight lakhs substituted by G.S.R. 1165 (E), dated 22.12.2016, for ‘rupees four lakhs’ (w.e.f. 01.01.2017). 11. The similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 714 , para 29 & 30 of which reads as under :- 29. The unjust consequence resulting from the interpretation which the Division Bench placed can be demonstrated in another plane also. If a person who sustained injury in a railway accident or in an untoward incident was disabled from making an application immediately and he makes the application a few years hence, is he to get the compensation in terms of the money value which prevailed on the date of the accident? Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the application and the claimant approaches the High Court in appeal. As it happens quite often now, some High Courts could take up such an appeal only after the lapse of many years and if the appeal is decided in favour of the claimant after so many years, what a pity if the amount awarded is only in terms of the figure indicated on the date of the accident. 30. From all these, we are of the definite opinion that the Claims Tribunal must consider what the Rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation. 12. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in 2018(2) JBCJ 478 (SC) has been held that : “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 Vs. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714 and Kalandi Charan Sahoo Vs. 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. 18. As already observed, though this Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi (supra) held that rate of interest has to be at the rate of 6% from the date of application till the date of the award and 9% thereafter and 9% rate of interest was awarded from the date of application in Mohamadi (supra), rate of interest has to be reasonable rate at par with accident claim cases. We are of the view that in absence of any specific statutory provision, interest can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railways arises upto the date of payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal position in this regard is at par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in this manner 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav, reported in 2019 (3) SCC 410 in para 11 it has been held that which reads as under :- 11. This issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi (supra) is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability has arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the measure of compensation. Therefore, if the liability has arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000/-. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration. 14. Now the question as to whether after receiving the decreetal amount, it was open for the claimant, representing the deceased to prefer an appeal for enhancement of compensation. The said issue fell for consideration before the Honble Guwahati High Court in case of Gopal Chandra Saha Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1999) 3 Gau LR 234 para 9 of which reads as under : 9. We are not impressed by the argument of Dr. HK Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, that as the appellant has already received the amount as awarded by the Tribunal along with the interest towards full and final settlement of his claim and has filed this appeal after two years of the expiry of the limitation, this appeal should be dismissed. No documents has been produced before us to show that the appellant has at any time agreed that he would not file any appeal before this Court if he was paid the amount of compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. Nor does section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, make any provision that a person who has received the amount as awarded by the Claim Tribunal cannot file any appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount. Nor does section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, make any provision that a person who has received the amount as awarded by the Claim Tribunal cannot file any appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount. The delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned by this Court and has been condoned in this case. Considering however the fact that the amount as awarded by the Tribunal has already been received by the appellant before he filed this appeal and considering further the fact that this appeal has been filed after a period of almost two years beyond the expiry of the period of limitation, we are not inclined to grant interest on the enhanced amount or the costs of this appeal in favour of the appellant. In case, however, the respondent-insurance company fails to pay the enhanced amount to the appellant within three months from today, the appellant will be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the filing of this appeal. 15. 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/- (Rs. Eight lacs) or Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four lacs) with @ 9 % per annum simple from the date of filing of the claim petition. It is made clear that the amount of compensation shall not be more than Rs.8,00,000/- in any case. Needless to say the amount of compensation shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since, the claimant has already received Rs. 2 lacs as submitted by the learned counsel, the same shall be deducted from final amount. 16. Let the lower court record be returned to the court concerned.