JUDGMENT : (Through : Video Conferencing) 1. Heard, learned counsel, Mr. R.K. Jha, assisted by learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh and learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Mahesh Tewari assisted by learned counsel Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the award dated 24.04.2015 passed by learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU) / RNC /2013 / 0004, whereby the claim application of the appellant has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the incident as not under untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and wrongly dismissed the claim application under Section 124-A of the Railways Act 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that deceased Md. Rijwan was travelling on 22.12.2011 from Gaya-Asansol Passenger bearing railway ticket no. 89122716 from Koderma to Asansol and because of heavy rush, the deceased was pushed to the other side of the door of the compartment and run over by the Dhanbad - Gaya Intercity Express and died on the spot. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the fact as stated in paragraph-8.3 of the impugned judgment that deceased was trying to board the train from the other side of the platform and because of his fault, he met with an accident where he was crushed by another train Dhanbad-Gaya Intercity Express and dismissed the claim application of the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Hon'ble the Apex Court considered such eventuality in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in 2008 (9) SCC 527 and has stated in paragraph-10 that “We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an 'accident falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers'. Hence, it is an 'untoward incident' as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act”. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further clarified in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 at para 22. Hence, it is an 'untoward incident' as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act”. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further clarified in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 at para 22. The relevant part is :- “22. …................ The question whether an act by which a passenger sustains injury while boarding a train through the offside, is a self-inflicted injury or not depends on the facts of each case. Merely because a person suffered injury in the process of getting into the train through the offside, it may not be sufficient to term it as a self-inflicted injury, unless the facts and circumstances show that his act was totally imprudent, irrational, callous and unmindful of the consequences ...............” 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the fact of this case is that deceased Md. Rijwan has purchased a ticket and because of heavy rush and because of insufficient space, even he has opted to board the train from the off-side, but certainly he had no intention to commit suicide or inflict injury, had it been so, he would not have purchased the ticket, rather because of lack of facilities and time provided by the railway, the passenger has to take such steps, which cannot be termed to be a self-inflicted injury as defined under Section 124-A proviso (b) of the Railway Act, rather the same will come under the preview of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, as such, appeal may be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Mahesh Tewari assisted by Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha has opposed the prayer and referred the impugned award at paragraph-8.3, which is quoted hereunder:- “8.3. The Bench examined the documentary evidence filed by the Applicant to prove her case. There is no dispute about the fact that one male person, aged about 25 years, was found lying dead near RPF Post in between the UP and DN line as reported by a passenger as seen from Dy. SM/Koderma's memo to OC/GRP/Koderma at 08.25 hrs on 22.12.2011 (Ext. R8). The informant in this case is one Samim Uddin who appeared as witness AW(2). In his application to GRP/Koderma at 09.30 hrs on 22.12.2011 he stated that he identified his younger brother and that he fell down while boarding Intercity Express. SM/Koderma's memo to OC/GRP/Koderma at 08.25 hrs on 22.12.2011 (Ext. R8). The informant in this case is one Samim Uddin who appeared as witness AW(2). In his application to GRP/Koderma at 09.30 hrs on 22.12.2011 he stated that he identified his younger brother and that he fell down while boarding Intercity Express. Based on the above, a U/D case No. 39/11 dtd. 22.12.2011 was registered. The Inquest Report (Ext.A3) reads that it appears that death was caused by the victim being dashed by a running train as per the statement of witnesses Majid Miya and Chhotelal Yadav. The Final Police Report (Ext.A2) after conducting investigation based on Dy. SM/Koderma's memo and taking the statement of the informant, witnesses of Majid Miya and Chhotelal Yadav, inspection of site, enquiry from other people who stated that he was dashed by the Intercity train while trying to board from the UP line, concludes that death occurred as the victim was dashed by a running train and was seriously injured. The Respondent in the DRM's report (Ext. R2) has asserted that the deceased was trying to board the train going from Koderma to Asansol from the wrong side which is opposite of Platform No. 3 and during boarding in the running train he was dashed by the Intercity Express which was coming from the UP direction. Though in Sl. No. 5(a) of Form 1 of Report of Untowards Incident (Ext.R5) under the heading “Accidental Fall” a remark has been made – Dashed by the running train, while in Form 2 of Brief Particulars of Untoward Incident it has been mentioned in Sl. No. 2 under the heading “Incidental falling or other Untoward Incidents” -the persons died due to dash by train while trying to board a running train, in my opinion it does not mean acceptance that it was an accidental fall from the train.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has thus submitted that appeal may not be allowed as sufficient reason has been given by the Railway Claims Tribunal while dismissing the appeal. 11. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into fact and circumstances of the case, it appears that deceased, Md. Rijwan has purchased railway ticket bearing no. 89122716 and he was a bonafide passenger as held by the Claim Tribunal itself. 11. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into fact and circumstances of the case, it appears that deceased, Md. Rijwan has purchased railway ticket bearing no. 89122716 and he was a bonafide passenger as held by the Claim Tribunal itself. Because of the rush, the passenger took option of boarding the train from the off-side as the doors are also opened on the other side of the track too. The deceased sustained injury, but certainly he has no knowledge nor intention to commit suicide and as such, because of untoward incident passenger suffered injury, which ultimately resulted in death of the deceased is covered as untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railway Act. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. 13. So far the interest is concerned the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.P. Sarabi & Others Vs. Union of India & Another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372 is relevant and paragraph-38 of the said judgment is quoted herein:- “38. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimants. In our view, both the Tribunal, as also the High Court, were wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to the established principles relating to payment of interest on money claims.” 14. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dilip & Others passed in Civil Appeal No.9124/2019 has held in paragraph-17 as under:- “The amount of compensation together with interest shall be paid by the respondent by issuing on account payee cheque in favour of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 in equal proportion within period of three months from today. In effect, the High Court awarded compensation taking Rs. 8 lakhs to be the base figure and granted interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date o lodging the claim application, to arrive at the aggregate sum of compensation. 1 to 3 in equal proportion within period of three months from today. In effect, the High Court awarded compensation taking Rs. 8 lakhs to be the base figure and granted interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date o lodging the claim application, to arrive at the aggregate sum of compensation. The question, whether in respect of accidents that occurred before the Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 were amended w.e.f. 27.12.2016, the amount of compensation has to be arrived, taking into account the base figure of Rs.4 lakh or Rs.8 lakhs was considered by this Court in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi [ (2019) 3 SCC 572 ].” 15. In view of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is inclined to award simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the learned Tribunal i.e. 29.11.2012 till the date of actual payment. 16. This Court is also aware of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav reported in 2019 (3) SCC 410 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph-11 as under:- “11. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 ] 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 had 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 Schedule as on the date of the award, the higher of two figures would be 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 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. 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.” 17. Considering such judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court allow the appeal and direct the railway to pay the compensation of Rs.4 lacs to the claimant along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual payment or Rs.8 lacs, whichever is higher to the claimant in view of the aforesaid judgment. 18. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous appeal is allowed. 19. Let the Lower Court Records be sent down.