JUDGMENT Anil Satyavijay Kilor, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 24th April, 2008, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, granting sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a., to the claimants/respondents. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that, the respondent/claimants filed a claim petition under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 (herein after referred as 'Act, 1989'), before the Railway Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation on account of death of their son Rajesh in an untoward incident. 3. It is the case of the claimants/respondents that deceased Rajesh was travelling from Thane to Parbhani by Mumbai-Nanded "Nandiram Express", train - No. 7605 and while returning from the toilet due to sudden jerk to the running train, accidentally he fell down from the running train near Parbhani Railway Station and was seriously injured in the said accident. He died in the hospital during treatment. 4. The railway/appellant in its written statement resisted the claim on the ground that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were self inflicted. The appellant further in its written statement denied that the deceased was the bona fide passenger. It is also the case of the appellant that the alleged 'untoward incident' does not fall within the ambit of section 123(c)(2) read with section 124-A of the Act, 1989, therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable. 5. Learned Tribunal by impugned judgment and award dated 24th April, 2008, granted a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the respondents/claimants, the same is under challenge in the present appeal. 6. Heard Shri Nitin Lambat learned counsel for the appellant/railway and Shri Harsulkar learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Shri Lambat learned counsel for the railway/appellant, submits as follows: (a) Merely because body was lying on the railway track, it cannot be presumed that deceased accidentally fell down from the running train and died in 'untoward incident'. (b) Injuries on the deceased were self inflicted and therefore, grant of compensation under section 123(c) and section 124(a) of the Act 1989, is erroneous. (c) Filing of an affidavit by the claimants, is not sufficient to discharge their burden to prove the fact of untoward incident. (b) Injuries on the deceased were self inflicted and therefore, grant of compensation under section 123(c) and section 124(a) of the Act 1989, is erroneous. (c) Filing of an affidavit by the claimants, is not sufficient to discharge their burden to prove the fact of untoward incident. (d) In absence of any other evidence led by the claimants, proving the said untoward incident, only on the basis of spot panchanama and inquest panchanama, holding that the deceased fell down from the running train and died in the untoward incident, is erroneous. (e) If at all the deceased Rajesh had fallen down from the running train, it would be improbable that he would be lying in the middle of the track in an injured condition. 8. Per contra Shri Harsulkar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2/applicants, submits as under: (i) In the matters like present one, the Tribunal has to decide the case on circumstances and preponderance of probabilities. (ii) In the present matter there are four circumstances which are in favour of the claimants, namely: (1) The deceased Rajesh was holding valid journey ticket which is not denied by the railway or it is not the case of the railway that said ticket is bogus. (2) The injured Rajesh was brought to the hospital by the appellant Railway. (3) Nature of injuries noticed on the body of the injured Rajesh. (4) Had the dash given by Railway Engine the body would have cut into pieces whereas the body of Rajesh was intact. 9. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record and impugned judgment with the help of the learned counsels for the parties. 10. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi reported 2018 ACJ 1441 , has held that initial burden to prove that injured or deceased was bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained, is on the claimant which can be discharged by filling affidavit for relevant facts and the burden will shift on the Railway and the issue can be decided on the fact shown or by attending circumstances. Para 17.4 of the said judgment is relevant which read thus. Para 17.4 of the said judgment is relevant which read thus. "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." 11. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others reported in 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 27 : 2008 (2) T.A.C. 777, has observed that Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a, liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Para 11 of the said judgment read thus. 11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the above mentioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524 (Para 9), B.D. Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 193 (Para 12), Transport Corporation of India vs. ESI Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc. 12. In a judgment of High Court of Allahabad in the case of Union of India vs. Smt. Rani and others reported in 2005(2) T.A.C. 11, it has held that, burden lies on railway to prove any of the circumstances mentioned in proviso 124(a) of the Railway Act, 1989. 12. In a judgment of High Court of Allahabad in the case of Union of India vs. Smt. Rani and others reported in 2005(2) T.A.C. 11, it has held that, burden lies on railway to prove any of the circumstances mentioned in proviso 124(a) of the Railway Act, 1989. Para 13 of the said judgment is relevant which read thus. "13. Now, coming to settled position regarding payment of compensation, we may mention that the Railway Administration shall not be liable to pay compensation on account of the death, if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to suicide or attempted suicide by him, self-inflicted injury; own criminal act; any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity or any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untowards incident. Therefore, the Railway can escape liability of payment of compensation, only, if the aforesaid circumstances are proved by them. Incidences mentioned in proviso to section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989 being exception to the general rule for payment of compensation for the death, the burden lies on the Railways to prove any of these circumstances, which may fall within the exception. In the absence of any proof by the Railway Administration, it shall be presumed that the accident occurred on account of untoward incident. The Tribunal in its judgment has observed that no cogent evidence was lead by the appellant to prove its version that the case does not fall within the definition untoward incident." 13. This Court in First Appeal No. 502 of 2014, Mechanism w/o. Sheikh Kasai and another vs. Union of India, its General Manager, Central Railway C.S.T., Mumbai, in a judgment delivered on 13th February, 2005, has held that only if railway pleads and proves that passenger suffered injury or died because of accident as stated in clause (a) to (e) of the proviso below section 124-A of the Act, 1989, the claims can be deprived by the claimant for compensation on the basis of proviso section 124-A of the Act, 1989. The said judgment further observes that burden to prove that the case falls under the proviso below section 124-A of the Act, 1989 is on the railway. The relevant para 8 of the said judgment read thus. "8. The said judgment further observes that burden to prove that the case falls under the proviso below section 124-A of the Act, 1989 is on the railway. The relevant para 8 of the said judgment read thus. "8. Further, the Tribunal has itself recorded that there are lot of contradictions in the case pleaded by the appellants and the record produced by the respondent. After recording this, the Tribunal has erroneously granted the benefit of the proviso below section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 to the respondent. In my view, the claimants can be deprived of the claim for compensation on the basis of the proviso below section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 only if the respondent pleads and proves that the passenger suffered injury or died because of the incident as stated in the clause (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the proviso below section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The burden to prove that the case falls under the proviso below section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is on the respondent. In the present case the respondent has not been able to establish that the case falls under the proviso below section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989." 14. The law thus emerged from the above referred judgments is that the incidences mentioned in the clause (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the proviso below section 124-A of Act 1989, being exception to the general rule for payment of compensation for the death. Railway can escape liability or shall not be liable to pay compensation on the account of death, if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to suicide or attempted suicide by him, self-inflicted injury; own criminal act; any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity or any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Thus the claimants can be deprived of the claim for compensation only if the respondent pleads and proves that the passenger suffered injury or died because of the incident as stated in the clause (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the proviso below section 124-A of Act, 1989. In the absence of any proof by the Railway Administration, it shall be presumed that the accident occurred on account of untoward incident. 15. In the absence of any proof by the Railway Administration, it shall be presumed that the accident occurred on account of untoward incident. 15. Before going further, at this stage it is necessary to refer to the definition of "untoward incident" defined in section 123(c) of Act, 1989, which read thus. "2(c) "untoward incident" means-- (1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers." 16. Now on considering the matter on merit, it is revealed that, the claimants have discharged their burden to prove that the deceased was the bona fide passenger, by filing an affidavit and stating inter alia the relevant facts about the incident in question. Therefore, the burden shifts on the appellant to rebut the case of the claimant that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. And since it is the case of the railway that the injuries on the deceased were self inflicted, therefore, the incident in question does not fall within the purview of expression 'untoward incident' as defined under section 123(c), moreover the present case falls within the exceptions of section 124(a) of the Act 1989, the burden will be on the railway to prove its case. 17. To discharge the burden, the railway has examined two witnesses namely Shri H.U.J. Londhe who was on duty from 21 hours of 14-12-2004 to 7 hours of 15-12-2004 in a capacity as ASM Parbhani Railway Station and Shri Mohadu Govinda, Mail Driver. 18. However, from the deposition of Shri Londhe and Shri Mohadu Govinda, nothing has been brought on record by the Railway to establish and prove that the deceased was not the bona fide passenger, the injuries on the deceased were self inflicted, and the present case falls within the proviso below section 124-A of the Act 1989. 19. 18. However, from the deposition of Shri Londhe and Shri Mohadu Govinda, nothing has been brought on record by the Railway to establish and prove that the deceased was not the bona fide passenger, the injuries on the deceased were self inflicted, and the present case falls within the proviso below section 124-A of the Act 1989. 19. In the present matter police documents namely spot panchanama and inquest panchanama, are part of the claim petition from which it could be seen that the deceased fell down from the running train. In sequel to this, admittedly there is no report given by any of the officer of the railway, intimating that there is any accidental dash being given by passing train to the deceased Rajesh, though there is no dispute that deceased Rajesh was found lying on the railway track in an injured condition. In addition to above referred facts the four circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents are relevant to reach to a definite conclusion as regards untoward incidence. The relevant circumstances are as follows i) that the deceased Rajesh was holding valid journey ticket, (ii) the railway brought the injured Rajesh to the hospital, (iii) the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased Rajesh and (iv) the body of Rajesh was not cut into pieces which would have been in case the railway engine had given dash. 20. This Court in the case of Jilesing Sardar Singh vs. Vikas Carriers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 539 , has observed that even though ordinarily an allegation made in the FIR would not be admissible in evidence per se but, as the allegation made in the FIR had been made a part of the claim petition, there is no doubt that the tribunal and consequently the Appellate Courts would be entitled to look into the same. 21. In the present matter there is no dispute that the police documents namely spot panchanama and inquest panchanama, are part of the claim, the learned tribunal has rightly looked into the same and held that the deceased fell down from the running train and died in untoward incident. 21. In the present matter there is no dispute that the police documents namely spot panchanama and inquest panchanama, are part of the claim, the learned tribunal has rightly looked into the same and held that the deceased fell down from the running train and died in untoward incident. Hence the argument made by the counsel for the appellant that in absence of any other evidence except an affidavit, only on the basis of spot panchanama and inquest panchanama, holding that the deceased fell down from the running train and died in untoward incident, is erroneous, is rejected. 22. In addition to this the above referred facts and circumstances, are also sufficient to safely presume that the deceased fell down from the running train and died in untoward incident. 23. Further more on failure of the appellant to discharge its burden to prove and establish that the present matter falls under the proviso below section 124-A of the Act, 1989, Railway cannot escape from liability and shall be liable to pay compensation on account of the death of deceased Rajesh. 24. Hence in the light of above discussion I have no hesitation to hold that there is no merit in the present appeal. The learned Tribunal has not committed any error in law while allowing the claim petition and granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-, vide impugned judgment and award. 25. At this juncture, Shri Harsulkar, learned counsel for respondents argues that in view of the notification dated 22nd December, 2016, the respondents are entitled for compensation Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing claim for compensation before the Tribunal till the date of payment. 26. Shri Harsulkar, learned counsel for respondent in support of his submissions has drawn attention of this Court to the notification dated 22nd December, 2016, which has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/-. 27. He further relies on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in a case of Bandana Mishra vs. Union of India reported in 2017 ACJ 2447 , wherein, relying upon the said notification dated 22-2-2016, the claimants were held entitled to get the compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest 7.5% pa from the date of lodging of claim till the payment. 28. 8,00,000/- with interest 7.5% pa from the date of lodging of claim till the payment. 28. He also relies upon the judgment of this Court delivered in First Appeal No. 924/2010 on 6th August, 2019, wherein on the basis of said notification dated 22nd December, 2016, compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- was granted. 29. The learned counsel for appellant is not disputing the said position. 30. Accordingly the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 24th April, 2008, is modified and thereby appellant is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the respondents within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of judgment along with interest @ 7.5% pa, after deducting the amount already paid to the respondents. 31. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost.