JUDGMENT : (Through : Video Conferencing) 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that claim application has been filed by six persons including the father and mother of the deceased, but while preferring the instant Appeal against the judgment of dismissal, relationship between the appellants herein and parents (father and mother) of the deceased strained and they are not in a position to locate the present and correct address of father and mother of the deceased who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 and thus, the matter is lingering since the year 2016. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the instant appeal may be disposed of, as it is a benevolent legislation and the compensation amount may be disbursed to dependent keeping the amount of compensation of the father and mother of the deceased pending before the Railway so as to pay the same to those persons, but keeping the appeal pending without adjudicating the appeal on merits will certainly cause loss to the appellants without any fault on their part, as the claimants are widow, son and daughter of the deceased, namely, 1.Smt. Chhuma Devi, widow of deceased-Dilip Bauri, 2.Chandan Kumar Bauri, minor son of deceased-Dilip Bauri, 3.Seema Kumari, minor daughter of deceased-Dilip Bauri and 4. Shamali Kumari, minor daughter of deceased-Dilip Bauri [appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are now about to attain majority] and they are requiring money for pursuing their education and livelihood, as such, the appeal may be heard on merits so as to adjudicate the issue. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection on this proposal and in case the appeal is allowed, the proportionate share of Awarded money of dependents (father and mother) shall be retained by the Railway for disbursement to the father and mother of deceased. 5. On the consent of the parties, the appeal is being heard on merits. 6. The appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order/judgment dated 25.05.2016 passed in Case No.OA(IIU)/RNC/2015/0028 whereby the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi has dismissed the claim application under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that claim application has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal on the erroneous finding contrary to the material brought on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that claim application has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal on the erroneous finding contrary to the material brought on record. The deceased was travelling with journey ticket upto Kharkhari Railway Station, but he has no journey ticket beyond Kharkhari Railway Station and the deadbody was found near Khario Fatak Halt next station, as such, the learned Tribunal has erroneously did not consider the deceased to be a bona-fide passenger. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that because of heavy pressure and crowd, the deceased who was a bona-fide passenger and was travelling from Talgaria to Kharkhari by Chakradharpur-Gomoh Passenger on 06.04.2014 with ticket could not get down at Kharkhari Railway Station and deceased (Dilip Bauri ) was forced to continue on the Rail and unfortunate incident took place near Khario Fatak Halt. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that because of heavy pressure, the person could not get down at the destination, but admittedly he fell down near the next Railway station where the train has to stop. 10. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Railway to show that deceased was not having a valid ticket, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 at para 29, which is quoted hereunder:- “29. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona 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.”. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the matter of untoward incident has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in 2008 (9) SCC 527 , paras 14 to 17 and 22 to 24, which are profitably quoted hereunder:- “14. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the matter of untoward incident has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in 2008 (9) SCC 527 , paras 14 to 17 and 22 to 24, which are profitably quoted hereunder:- “14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression. 15. Section 2(29) of the Railways Act defines “passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident” to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression. 15. Section 2(29) of the Railways Act defines “passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident” to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A of the Railways Act with which we are concerned states: “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 dependent 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 supplied) 16. The accident in which Smt. Abja died is clearly not covered by the proviso to Section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124-A. Hence, in our opinion, the present case is clearly covered by the main body of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and not its proviso. 17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. 17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. 22. Strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendant's activity rather than, as in negligence, the way in which it is carried on (vide Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn., p. 247). There are many activities which are so hazardous that they may constitute a danger to the person or property of another. The principle of strict liability states that the undertakers of these activities have to compensate for the damage caused by them irrespective of any fault on their part. As Fleming says “permission to conduct such activity is in effect made conditional on its absorbing the cost of the accidents it causes, as an appropriate item of its overheads” (see Fleming on Torts, 6th Edn., p. 302). 23. Thus, in cases where the principle of strict liability applies, the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the defendant may not have been at any fault. 24. The basis of the doctrine of strict liability is twofold: (i) The people who engage in particularly hazardous activities should bear the burden of the risk of damage that their activities generate, and (ii) it operates as a loss distribution mechanism, the person who does such hazardous activity (usually a corporation) being in the best position to spread the loss via insurance and higher prices for its products (vide Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn., p. 267). 12. As such, the case is squarely covered under the above judgment. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants/claimants may be given interest on the compensation amount in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others vs. Union of Indian and another, reported in 2009 (7) SCC 372 para 38, which is profitably quoted hereunder:- “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. 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. Learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh has submitted that no ticket has been found and a concocted story, claiming the deceased to be a bona-fide passenger will not improve the case of the appellants and the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application, considering the deceased (Dilip Bauri) not to be a bona-fide passenger under Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, as such, this Court may not interfere with the impugned award. 15. Heard, the rival submissions of the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant that deceased had valid ticket from Talgaria to Kharkhari Railway Station and just before the place of occurrence near Khario Fatak Halt after Kharkhari Station, but could not get down because of heavy pressure and now this Court considers the deceased to be a bonafide passenger as no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Railways to disbelieve the case of the claimants with regard to bona-fide passenger. 16. Under the aforesaid circumstances and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) at Para 29 and Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) at Paras 14 to 17 and 22 to 24, this Court considers it to be a case of untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. However mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claimants that he was a bona-fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimants which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant fact and burden will then shift upon the Railways and the issue can be decided on the fact shown or attending circumstances. 17. Initial burden will be on the claimants which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant fact and burden will then shift upon the Railways and the issue can be decided on the fact shown or attending circumstances. 17. This Court considers the deceased to be a bonafide passenger in view of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the Case of Rina Devi (supra) and the incident is to be considered as untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act and the impugned order requires to be set aside. 18. Accordingly, the order/judgment dated 28.08.2012 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No.TAU/RNC/2003/0053 is hereby set aside. 19. Further, the claimants are entitled for compensation in terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav, reported in 2019 (3) SCC 410 in paras 11 and 12 which are quoted hereunder:- “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. 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. 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. 12. Consequently, we must hold that the High Court was in error in awarding interest on the sum of Rs. 8 lakhs in the instant case. Where the accident had occurred before the amendment, it ought to have considered the matter in the light of the principle laid down in Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 ]. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeals. However, the respondent, in any case, would not be affected in any manner and will be entitled to the sum awarded by the High Court. 20. Accordingly the instant appeal is hereby allowed. 21. The respondent-railways is directed to pay compensation within a reasonable time as per the prevalent rate at the time of filing of the claim application which was a sum of Rs.4 Lac along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till the date of judgment or Rs.8 Lacs in view of the new amended rule 2016 made effective from 01.01.2017, whichever is higher in favour of the claimants. 22. Apportionment of the award shall be done by the Railways in six shares, out of which four shares shall be paid to the appellants holding two shares in the fixed deposit so as to pay the same to the father and mother of the deceased on their proper verification. 23. Railway authorities may take help of District Legal Services Authority, Dhanbad in finding the correct and present address of parents of the deceased (Dilip Bauri), Kota Bauri and Chari Devi, both residents of Village-Mohalla-Kharkhari, P.O.-Kharkhari, P.S.-Madhuban, District-Dhanbad, 828125 so as to pay the compensation amount to the old persons, who are dependents of the deceased. 24. Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Dhanbad is directed to co-operate the Railway Authorities so as to pay the award to the actual claimants. 25. Let a copy of this order be communicate through FAX to the District Legal Services Authority, Dhanbad.