JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha and learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha. 2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the Award/Judgment dated 31.01.2017 passed by Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2015/0104, whereby the claim application of the appellants/parents of the deceased have been dismissed on the ground that the deceased Pulis Marandi died because of his reckless, imprudent violating all safety norms demanded during train travel with imminent possibility of endangering both life and limbs of a passenger. The case of the deceased comes under clause (b) of proviso to Section 124-A of Railways Act and as such, exempted the railway to pay compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the deceased, who has a ticket bearing no. 88302375, was traveling from Asansol to Madhupur by boarding train no. 12369/12327 UP on 11.09.2015 and fell down at Chittaranjan Railway Station due to intense jostling and sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. The UD Case No. 43/2015 was registered. The Tribunal has wrongly considered the case under exception clause (b) i.e. self-inflicted injury of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 = AIR 2008 (2) TAC 777 SC. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal has committed error on two counts; firstly that the deceased Pulis Marandi was possessing a passenger ticket, but boarded on an express train, secondly that the deceased has purchased ticket upto Chittaranjan and boarded train going to Madhupur and sustained injury while trying to get down at Chittranjan Station, as such, died in an accident because of his own fault. Thus, passed impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that this Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2020 has considered that Railway has not adduced any evidence to substantiate their argument, rather, the documents which have been produced by the Railway from Serial Nos. Thus, passed impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that this Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2020 has considered that Railway has not adduced any evidence to substantiate their argument, rather, the documents which have been produced by the Railway from Serial Nos. 1 to 15, firstly never speaks anything that ticket was upto Madhupur or Chittaranjan, secondly, that the express train has no stoppage at Chittaranjan and thirdly, that there was passenger train available on the route for which the deceased has taken ticket, but wrongly boarded express/super fast train. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 , only on the basis of an affidavit filed by the claimants, that the deceased has a railway ticket, has been taken note and considered that the deceased was a bonafide passenger but in the present case, the deceased had a ticket. No contrary evidence has been brought on record to strengthen the argument of the Railway, that it was a passenger ticket and deceased has boarded in an express train or super fast train. Further, in view of the judgment passed in the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (Supra), the case of the deceased comes under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act and not under exception Clause (b) of proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act. No evidence has been brought on record to substantiate that the case of the deceased comes under exception clause (b) of proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, as such, the impugned award may be set aside. The appellants may be awarded compensation in view of recent notification passed in G.S.R. 1165 (E) issued by Ministry of Railway dated 22.12.2016 made applicable with effect from 01.01.2017, where compensation in case of death has been enhanced from Rs. 4 Lacs to Rs. 8 Lacs. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that claimants are entitled to Rs. 4 Lacs with interest or Rs. 8 Lacs without interest in view of Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) whichever is higher, as the Railways Act is a benevolent legislation for the benefit of the claimants. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. 4 Lacs with interest or Rs. 8 Lacs without interest in view of Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) whichever is higher, as the Railways Act is a benevolent legislation for the benefit of the claimants. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha has submitted that the deceased has boarded express train, having passenger ticket upto Chittaranjan Railway Station and wrongly pleaded in the claim application that deceased was travellling from Asansol to Madhupur, which would be evident from Exhibit R-10 i.e. Enquiry Report of SI/RPF Madhupur. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has thus submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application as it is a case which comes under exception clause (b) of proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent, perused the materials brought on record and judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. 11. It appears that the controversy is with regard to incident, in which Pulis Marandi lost his life, which was an untoward accident as defined under Section 123 (C) of the Railways Act or it will come under the exception clause (b) of proviso to Section 124 (A) of the Railways Act. 12. This Court has perused the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (Supra) and considered the arguments made by both the sides. The case of the appellants is that the deceased died because of heavy rush and intense jostling in the train, as such, in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is accepting the incident to be an untoward incident under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act. So far, the consideration with regard to ticket is concerned, even if the argument of learned counsel for the respondent is accepted that deceased had a ticket of passenger train, but boarded express/super fact train and thus, he is not a bonafide passenger. This submission of learned counsel for the respondent is not acceptable in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) where only an affidavit to that regard by the witnesses have been considered, the deceased a valid passenger. The respondent has not brought contrary to the same. 13. This submission of learned counsel for the respondent is not acceptable in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) where only an affidavit to that regard by the witnesses have been considered, the deceased a valid passenger. The respondent has not brought contrary to the same. 13. Under the aforesaid circumstances, once the ticket number has been brought on record as 88302375 from Asansol to Madhupur, the railway ought to have brought on record any material to show that this ticket was never sold by the railway or this ticket was never issued for the express train and only on the argument, that deceased was holding ticket for passenger train will not suffice the purpose to declare the deceased not a bonafide passenger under Section 2 (29) of the Act in a benevolent legislation like Railways Act, 1989. 14. The Court has perused the entire materials brought on record and thus inclined to accept the case of the appellants, as the deceased was having ticket, to be a bonafide passenger as defined under Section 2 (29) of the Act in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra). The deceased was victim of an Untoward Incident as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Act, in view of judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (Supra). Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.01.2017 passed by Member (Judicial), Railway Claim Tribunal, Ranchi in OA (IIU)/RNC/2015/01014 is hereby set aside. 15. The respondent-Railway is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8 Lacs in view of recent notification dated 22.12.2016 issued by Ministry of Railways in G.S.R. 1165 (E) or Rs. 4 Lacs with interest, whichever is higher to the claimants in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Rina Devi (Supra). 16. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous appeal is hereby allowed.