JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is against the judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (for short the “Tribunal”) in case no. OA(IIu)/ NGP/2015/0102. 2. The facts of the present appeal can be summarized as under: On 02.10.2014, deceased, namely, Nanda Giridhar Deshbhratar was travelling alongwith her friend namely, Indubai Manohar Gajbhiye. They had purchased Second Class ordinary railway ticket from Sausar to Khaperkheda. They were coming in a Train. Due to over-crowd in the train, deceased was standing in the door of the train. When train was moving from Railway Bridge No. 78 near Lodhikheda, District Chindwada, due to sudden jerk of train, deceased fell down from the running train and died. Legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal. Respondent-Railway contested the claim by filing written statement. Issues were framed. The Tribunal recorded its finding that the deceased was bonafide passenger. However, it is held by the Tribunal that the deceased jumped from the train and committed suicide. Therefore, defence of Railway as under Section 124A(a) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short the “Act”) is proved. On that ground, the claim of the appellants came to be rejected. 3. Heard Shri Wasnik, learned Advocate for the appellants. He has pointed out evidence on record and submitted that the Railway has examined one Guard. Learned Advocate has pointed out cross-examination of witness Rajkumar Rajak (Guard) and submitted that witness Rajkumar (Guard) could not stated the name of passenger who informed him that deceased jumped in the river. Learned Advocate has submitted that there was no any reason for lady to commit suicide. Finding recorded by the Tribunal that deceased was under mental shock due to death of her brother, therefore, she committed suicide. This finding is without any evidence on record. Learned Advocate has pointed out following judgments: 1. Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others, 2008(5) ALL MR 917, 2. Jameela & Ors. Vs. Union of India 2010 AIR (SC) 3705, 3. Union of India Vs. Rina Devi 2018 AIR (SC) 2362, 4. Union of India through the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secundrabad Vs. Godawaribai Kothiwale and ors. 2013 (5) AIR Bom.R 815 and 5. Union of India Vs. Surekha Suresh Limaye & Ors. 2010(6) Mh.L.J 833 4. Learned Advocate Shri Wasnik has submitted that it is the burden on railway to prove defence under Section 124A(a) of the Act. Union of India through the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secundrabad Vs. Godawaribai Kothiwale and ors. 2013 (5) AIR Bom.R 815 and 5. Union of India Vs. Surekha Suresh Limaye & Ors. 2010(6) Mh.L.J 833 4. Learned Advocate Shri Wasnik has submitted that it is the burden on railway to prove defence under Section 124A(a) of the Act. Section 124A(a) lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of Railway accident and, therefore, respondent is bound to pay the amount of compensation. 5. Learned Advocate Shri Lambat has pointed out the statement of appellant no. 1 recorded by Railway Police Force (RPF) and submitted that the appellant no. 1 has stated in his statement that mental condition of his wife was not good. Learned Advocate has pointed out that Marg Intimation Report and submitted that as per this report one unknown lady/woman jumped from the train and committed suicide. 6. Learned Advocate Shri Lambat for the respondent has submitted that deceased jumped from train in the river when the train reached on the bridge and, therefore, it is case of suicide and not untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. At last, submitted that the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment, therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have verified the record. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the Guard who examined before the Tribunal not stated in his evidence as to who informed him about the jumping of the deceased in the river on the railway bridge. He has stated in his cross-examination that he do not know the name of the passenger who informed him about incident. As per affidavit of RW-1, he was working as a Guard on Jabalpur-Nagpur Passenger. On 02.10.2014, when train arrived at Lodhikheda Railway Station at about 12.09 hours, some passengers informed him that one lady jumped from running train at Bridge no. 78. Relying on this evidence, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants. 8. It is pertinent to note that evidence of RW-1 shows that he is not eye-witness of the incident. He personally not seen the deceased jumping from the train at railway Bridge no. 78. He has stated that some passengers informed him about the incident. It was his duty to record the name of the passenger who told him about the incident. He personally not seen the deceased jumping from the train at railway Bridge no. 78. He has stated that some passengers informed him about the incident. It was his duty to record the name of the passenger who told him about the incident. Therefore, evidence of RW-1 cannot be relied on. Burden is on the railway to prove the exception carved out under Section 124A(a) of the Act. 9. Learned Advocate Shri Lambat has pointed out Marg Intimation Report. That intimation was given by one Ramesh Premlal Manik (Sweeper). This Marg Intimation cannot be taken as gospel truth. He was sweeper of the Railway Department. He was not travelling in the train. He was not having any personal knowledge. Moreover, this witness i.e. Ramesh Malik was not examined by the Railway. 10. Learned Advocate Shri Lambat has pointed out statement of appellant no. 1 recorded by Railway Police Force (RPF). In his statement two questions were asked by the Railway Police. In his statement, in answer has stated that mental condition of his wife was not good. That does not mean that she was in a mental shock due to death of her brother and, therefore, she jumped from the Railway. There was no reason to commit suicide. 11. Claim of the appellants is that deceased was travelling in train with valid journey ticket. She was bonafide passenger. She was travelling in a general bogie. Due to heavy rush and due to the jerk of the train, she was thrown out of the train and, therefore, untoward incident taken place. 12. Learned Advocate Shri Wasnik has pointed out Crime Detail Form and Inquest Panchnama. From the perusal of both documents, it is clear that deceased fell down from running train and died. Deceased fell down from the running train on a metal and died due to head injury. As per Post-Mortem Report, cause of death was due to excessive hemorrhage and fracture of Fore Long bones of body. Therefore, it is clear that deceased died due to falling from running train. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others reported in 2008(5) ALL MR 917, has held that; “Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Therefore, it is clear that deceased died due to falling from running train. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others reported in 2008(5) ALL MR 917, has held that; “Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. If a case comes within the purview of Section 124A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 24 and 25 has held as under: “24. Strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendants' 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). 25. 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.” 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jameela & Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in 2010 AIR (SC) 3705 has held that: “Deceased may be a negligent. Untoward incident took place due to negligence of the injured/deceased, it cannot amount a criminal act and, therefore, railway cannot deny liability.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case in paragraph nos. 5, 7 and 9 has held as under: “5. 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 124A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railway 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. First, the case of the Railway 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 of the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railway 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. * * * * 7. It is not denied by the Railway 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 124A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under section 124A 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 the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). * * * * 9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the railway 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 railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.” 15. In the case of Union of India Vs. 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 railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.” 15. In the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in 2018 AIR (SC) 2362, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “Death or injury in the course of boarding or deboarding train, untoward incident entitling victim to compensation and will not fall under proviso to Section 124A merely on plea of negligence of victim as contributing factor.” It is further held that: “Mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased not to negative claim that he was bona fide passenger. Initial burden of proof is on claimant which can be discharged by filing affidavit of relevant facts. Burden then shifts on Railways and issue can be decided on facts shown or attending circumstances.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case in paragraph no. 17.4 has held that: “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 bona 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 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. 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.” 16. In the present case, the appellant had filed affidavit before the Tribunal, then burden is shifted on the Railway. The Railway has examined one Guard. His evidence is hearsay evidence. It is not admissible as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. He has stated in his evidence that he was informed by some passengers that deceased jumped from the train and, therefore, it is suicide. To prove the exception under Section 124A, it is duty of the Railway to disprove the claim of the claimant by adducing cogent and proper evidence. He has stated in his evidence that he was informed by some passengers that deceased jumped from the train and, therefore, it is suicide. To prove the exception under Section 124A, it is duty of the Railway to disprove the claim of the claimant by adducing cogent and proper evidence. Defence adduced by the Railway is not admissible in the eye of law. Because, whatever RW-1 has stated in his evidence, it is hearsay evidence. In cross-examination, he has stated that some passengers informed him, but he has not stated the name of the passenger. The said passenger was not examined by the Railway and, therefore, burden is not discharged by the Railway to disprove the claim of the appellants. 17. This Court in the cases of Union of India through the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secundrabad Vs. Godawaribai Kothiwale and ors. reported in 2013 (5) AIR Bom.R 815 has held in paragraph 14 that: “[14] Thus, perusal of these rulings would indicate that it is obligatory for railway administration to lead evidence to prove that the deceased died because of suicide or attempt to commit suicide or as a result of self-inflicted injuries or because of his own criminal act or that death had occurred as a result of natural or medical or surgical reason. Thus, if railway failed to plead and establish any exception, it cannot avoid a liability to pay compensation to the claimant/dependent for untoward incident causing death of a person who was traveling by a train and died as a result of any untoward accident.” 18. This Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Surekha Suresh Limaye & Ors. reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J 833 has held that: “It is submitted with reference to the provisions above, that Railway administration is required to lead necessary evidence to establish that its case is coming within any of the exception stated in proviso to section 124-A. The section lays down a rule that whenever an untoward incident occurs in the course of working of a railway which irrespective of any wrongful act neglect or default and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law Railway administration is liable to pay compensation as may be prescribed in case of any injury to the passenger or to dependents of deceased victim who met an untoward incident. Thus, unless Railway administration can categorically point out that the case is within any of the above exceptions covered by the provision it cannot avoid its responsibility to pay the statutory compensation. Reference is made to the ruling in Narshimha Annaji Purohit and another vs. Union of India: 2005(4)All.M.R.189; in which this 5 Court had observed in Paragraph 13 : “since the burden is always on the Railways as has been held in the aforesaid cases and since that burden has not been discharged by the Railways, it has to be held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger”. 19. While deciding the claim petition, the Tribunal/Court has to take liberal interpretation. Claimants or legal heirs are not eye-witness of the incident. They have to rely on the documents placed on record by the Police/Railway Authority etc. 20. In this case, Crime Detail Form (Spot Panchnama) and Inquest Panchnama both documents were prepared by the Railway Police. As per contents of both these documents, it is clear that deceased died due to falling from the running train. These documents cannot be denied by the respondent, because those documents were prepared by their police. As per these documents, untoward incident was taken place and, therefore, deceased died. There is no dispute that deceased was bonafide passenger. Valid journey ticket was found at the time of Inquest Panchnama. 21. In that view of the matter, following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned judgment is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Respondent is directed to pay amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakh only). (iv) Amount of compensation be distributed in equal shares to appellant nos. 1 to 3. (v) Respondent is directed to pay/deposit said amount within a period of twelve weeks.