ORDER : 1. This appeal arises out of Order and Judgment dated 30.11.2012, passed by Railway Claim Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2009/0070 whereby and whereunder claim application filed by the applicants has been dismissed. 2. Claim application was filed on 09.10.2009 by applicants alleging therein that on 11.08.2009, Dhirendrachandra Mahto (deceased) was coming from Howrah to Muri and by the same train he went to Ranchi. He fell down from the train in between Kita and Jonha Railway Station near KM371/46. He was travelling in Sleeper Class (S-9) by 8615 Howrah Hatia Express and from Muri to Ranchi on monthly ticket. In support of their application, the applicants have also enclosed FIR 2 nos., Fardbayan of Jagmohan Mahto, MTS, Copy of Journey Ticket, PM Examination certificate, Postmortem report, Voter I. Card of Nebubala Mahto and Dhirenchandra Mahato. 3. The respondent-Railway filed written statement denying therein claim of the claimants on the ground that deceased did not die due to untoward incident. It is alleged that there was gross negligence on part of deceased as there was no rush in the train between Kita and Jonha on alleged date. It is further alleged that there was no specific train number mentioned anywhere in the application from which the deceased had fallen down. It is further alleged that there is no report that handle or ladder of the gate was damaged due to which deceased might fallen down and died. Railway cannot be saddled with any liability for the wrong committed by the deceased and applicant is not entitled to get any compensation. The alleged incident took place due to negligent act of the deceased as he was detraining from the running train. The incident is clearly a self-inflected injury and coming under the exceptions as per proviso from (a) to (e) of the Railway Act, 1989. Respondent-Railway further alleged that they cannot be held liable for the negligence and unlawful acts of the deceased. 4. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, framed following issues: (1) Whether the deceased Dhirenchandra Mahto, S/o. Lt. Haradhan Mahto was a bonafide passenger as alleged? (2) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to the Dhirenchandra Mahto, S/o Lt. Haradhan Mahto while travelling from Howrah to Muri in Train No. 8615 Howrah-Hatia Express on 11.08.2009? (3) Whether the SM/DRM’s Report is filed? Haradhan Mahto was a bonafide passenger as alleged? (2) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to the Dhirenchandra Mahto, S/o Lt. Haradhan Mahto while travelling from Howrah to Muri in Train No. 8615 Howrah-Hatia Express on 11.08.2009? (3) Whether the SM/DRM’s Report is filed? (4) Whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any? 5. After framing of the issues, the applicants/appellants furnished copies of documents and after examining records of the case, learned Tribunal discussed the issues in details and observed that respondents could not submit anything disputing bonafides of the deceased and as such Issue No. (1) was decided in favour of the applicant. While dealing with other issues, learned Tribunal held that though deceased was coming from Howrah to Muri by Train No. 8615 [Howrah Hatia Express] but nowhere it has come on record as to by which train deceased was travelling from Muri to Ranchi and fell down at the alleged place of occurrence. Learned Tribunal further observed that as per statement of Train Guard when train was running in slow motion, deceased was trying to get down from the running train in between section and as a result of which he accidentally fell down in between Section Kita and Jonha Station, which proves his negligence. Learned Tribunal has further based his order on the documents on record including DRM report which speaks that deceased died due to his own negligence. In the circumstances, learned Tribunal held that the incident comes under self-inflicted injuries and thus comes under the exceptions (a) to (e) of Section 124A of Railway Act, 1989, specifically Section 124A(b). In the circumstances learned Tribunal has held that applicants are not entitled for any compensation and accordingly dismissed the same. 6. While assailing Judgment of learned Tribunal, Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta assisted by Mr. Akshay Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants/appellants submits that deceased was a bonafide passenger and was having a valid ticket. Learned counsel submits that Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with Compensation on account of untoward incident and Explanation thereof reads as under: “Explanation – For the purposes of this section “passenger” includes: (i) a railway servant on duty. Learned counsel submits that Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with Compensation on account of untoward incident and Explanation thereof reads as under: “Explanation – For the purposes of this section “passenger” includes: (i) a railway servant on duty. (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.” Learned counsel further contended that as the accident was admitted it was also admitted that the deceased fell down from the said train having valid ticket and the same has not been disputed and hence claimants are entitled for the compensation as prescribed under the Act as on date. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that order of the learned Tribunal is cryptic, illegal and fit to be set aside. The learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards finding of the Tribunal towards Issue No. 1 and submits that the same has already been decided in favour of the appellants and as such it can be very safely said that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and was having a valid ticket, which is not in dispute as the same has not been challenged by the Railway rather it is admitted. The 2nd bone of contention is whether it is a case of negligence on part of the deceased or whether it falls within the ambit of untoward incident. The finding of the Tribunal regarding Issue No. 2 is not sustainable as the same is based on statement of Train Guard, who himself was not aware of any accident. Said Train Guard showed his ignorance about any information regarding such incident and the same was affirmed and accepted by the DRM, which negates finding of the Tribunal as the finding of the Tribunal is not corroborated in any manner with the statement of Train Guard and as such finding is perverse. Learned counsel further submits that as the deceased was having a valid ticket and was a bona-fide passenger and death was admitted, the claimant is entitled for compensation as per the Railway Act. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision in the case of Jameela and Others vs. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443 and draws attention of this Court towards para-7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the said Judgment. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision in the case of Jameela and Others vs. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443 and draws attention of this Court towards para-7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the said Judgment. Learned counsel further places reliance in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, 2018 (2) JBCJ 478 SC and submits that in view thereof appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 8 Lac. 7. On the other hand Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Railway vehemently opposes prayer and submission of the appellants and submits that claimants are not entitled for a single farthing as deceased was neither a bonafide passenger nor it was a case of untoward incident. Claimants have failed to prove their case for grant of compensation. There is total criminal negligence on part of the deceased and it is a self inflicted injury which cannot be compensated by the Railway. Justifying impugned Award it has been argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in passing impugned Award. Learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Bimla Devi and Another vs. Union of India passed in FAO No. 421/2012. 8. Be that as it may, having heard both sides and perusing the records, I find force in submission of learned counsel for the appellants. The issue regarding valid ticket and bonafide passenger has already been resolved by the learned Tribunal itself, which is accepted by the parties and hence nothing requires to be adjudicated upon. It is admitted fact that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and having valid ticket. The other contention regarding case of untoward incident or a case of criminal negligence, the issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which needs no further interpretation. In this connection it is important to refer para-7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jameela and Others vs. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443 , which reads as under: “7. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railways that the deceased M. Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness to the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railways that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Act. 8. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123, the first section of the Chapter, has definition clauses. Clause (c) defines “untoward incident” which insofar as relevant for the present case is as under: “123. (c) ‘untoward incident’ means: (1)(i) – (iii) (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 9. Section 123, the first section of the Chapter, has definition clauses. Clause (c) defines “untoward incident” which insofar as relevant for the present case is as under: “123. (c) ‘untoward incident’ means: (1)(i) – (iii) (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 9. Section 124-A of the Act provides as follows: “124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents - When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the Railway Administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the Railway Administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to: (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation – For the purposes of this section ‘passenger’ includes: (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.” (Emphasis added) 10. It is not denied by the Railways that M. Hafeez fell down from the train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a ‘passenger’ for the purpose of Section 124-A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under Section 124-A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. He was, therefore, clearly a ‘passenger’ for the purpose of Section 124-A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under Section 124-A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. But the proviso to the section says that the Railway Administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). 11. Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railways that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental. 12. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railways, that the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the Railways itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124-A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the Railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent Judgment passed in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, 2018 (2) JBCJ 478 SC, has held at para-16.1 as under: “16.1 From the judgments cited at the Bar we do not see any conflict on the applicability of the principle of strict liability. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent Judgment passed in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, 2018 (2) JBCJ 478 SC, has held at para-16.1 as under: “16.1 From the judgments cited at the Bar we do not see any conflict on the applicability of the principle of strict liability. Section 124 and Section 124A provide that compensation is payable whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of the railway administration in the case of an accident or in the case of an ‘untoward incident.’ Only exceptions are those provided under proviso to Section 124A. In Prabhakaran Vijya Kumar (supra) it was held that Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Where principles of strict liability applies, proof of negligence is not required. This principle has been reiterated in Jameela (supra).” 10. It is also settled principles of law that where there are two conflicting views, as in the instant case, either of the two which goes in favour of the claimant should be considered. Incident leading to death of the victim is admitted and falling from the train is also admitted. Case admittedly falls within the category of untoward incident and hence claimants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 8 Lac. as per latest circular of the Railways dated 22.12.2016. 11. In view of facts and circumstances of the case and as discussed hereinabove and the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, I do not find any force in contention of Mr. Mahesh Tewari appearing on behalf of respondent-Railway. 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. 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. 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.” 12. 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, 2014 (10) SCC 702 . Applying the principles laid down in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) in present case and the recent notification of compensation from Railways, the claimants are held entitled to compensation from Railways as Rs. 8,00,000/-. 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/- (Rupees Eight Lacs). Needless to say the amount of compensation shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 14. Let the lower court record be returned to the court concerned. Appeal allowed.