JUDGMENT : 1. This an appeal is against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (For short the “Tribunal”) in Case No. OA(IIu)/ NGP/2013/0300. 2. The facts of the present appeal can be summarized as under: Deceased - Motiram Meshram resident of Arjuni-Morgaon purchased Railway Ticket on 13.02.2013 to go to Chandafort. As per contention of the appellants, deceased boarded in a wrong train and he went to Ballarshah Railway Yard. While alighting, he was run over by the train and, therefore, it was untoward incident. Legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the same on the ground that deceased had purchased ticket from Arjni Morgaon to Chandafort, but he travelled to Ballarshah Railway Station. He was not having ticket from Chandafort to Ballarshah and, therefore, he was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal has observed that dead body was identified by his son (appellant no. 2) after verifying the belongings of the deceased and, therefore, identification is not properly proved. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Heard Shri Bagul, learned Advocate for the appellants. He has pointed out documents filed on record. As per document Exh. A-25 (Certificate issued by Station Master, Arjuni Morgaon), Ticket No. F26268929 II/0 dated 13.02.2013 was issued on 13.02.2013. As per the case of the appellants, deceased was proceeding from Arjuni Morgaon to Chandafort, but wrongly boarded other train. Incident occurred on the same day on 13.02.2013. Spot Panchnama etc. was prepared on the same day. As per Occurrence/Marg Report, on 13.02.2013 at about 07.35 p.m. one unknown person aged about 70-75 years was run over by one train and died. Spot Panchnama was prepared. Identification Panchnama is at Exh. A-45. As per this Identification Panchnama dated 18.02.2013, son of the deceased i.e. Vasanta Meshram (appellant no. 2) was in search of his father. He came to Railway Station, Ballarshah. Belongings of deceased were shown to him. He identified those wearings of his father. Accordingly, Identification Panchnama was prepared by the Government Railway Police (G.R.P.). 4. Learned Advocate Shri Lambat for the respondent has submitted that presumption can be drawn that deceased might have alighted at Chandafort and by walk he might have proceeded to Railway Yard, Ballarshah. 5. There is no such pleading of the respondent. He identified those wearings of his father. Accordingly, Identification Panchnama was prepared by the Government Railway Police (G.R.P.). 4. Learned Advocate Shri Lambat for the respondent has submitted that presumption can be drawn that deceased might have alighted at Chandafort and by walk he might have proceeded to Railway Yard, Ballarshah. 5. There is no such pleading of the respondent. Moreover, it is strict liability of the Railway to prove his defence as per Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short the “Act”). Only benefit is given to the Railway, if the defences as carved out under proviso (a) to (e) of Section 124A of the Act or proved by any cogent evidence. As per Section 124A of the Act, it is strict liability of the Railway. It is like ‘no fault liability’ under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per Section 124A of the Act,: “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…...” 6. 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: “It is strict liability - no fault liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act. The defences carved out in exception of proviso (a) to (e) of Section 124A of the Railways Act is to be proved by the Railway. Burden is no the Railway to prove the defences and not on the claimant.” 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jameela & Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in 2010 ACJ 2453 has held that: “Even the passenger fell down even due to his own fault, that can not be termed as a criminal act. Therefore, on that ground, even though the passenger died due to his own negligence the Railway is bound to pay amount of compensation” 8. Learned Advocate Shri Bagul has pointed out decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Therefore, on that ground, even though the passenger died due to his own negligence the Railway is bound to pay amount of compensation” 8. Learned Advocate Shri Bagul has pointed out decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Anuradha and another reported in 2014 ACJ 856 . In the cited decision, this Court has held that: “Untoward incident of bonafide passenger, passenger fell down due to sudden jerk of train and died on the spot. Railway Claim Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Contention that deceased purchased a ticket to go to Purna but he boarded a wrong train going yard therefore deceased cannot be considered as bona fide passenger. Evidence that deceased had purchased a general class ticket even if he had boarded wrong train, if the passenger fell down from train due to sudden jerk, it is an untoward incident and railway administration in view of strict liability is liable to compensate the victim………….” 9. In the present case, as per submission learned Advocate Shri Lambat on behalf of Railway, deceased was not a bona fide passenger as the ticket was up to Chandafort from Arjuni Morgaon. Deceased found dead at Ballarshah Yard and, therefore, appellants are not entitled for compensation. 10. In view of the cited judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Anuradha and another reported in 2014 ACJ 856 , even the deceased travelled in a wrong train that does not mean that he was not a bona fide passenger. Deceased was having a valid journey ticket. That ticket is certified by the Station Master, Arjuni Morgaon. Therefore, deceased was a bona fide passenger. Untoward incident took place. Claim cannot be denied on the ground that deceased boarded in a wrong train and reached at Railway Station, Ballarshah. 11. In view of the cited judgments, appeal is allowed. 12. Impugned judgment is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. The respondent-Railway is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh only) to the appellants within a period of twelve weeks. 14. Amount of compensation be distributed to appellant nos. 1 and 2 in equal shares. 15. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.