JUDGMENT : 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the judgment dated 13.08.2013 passed by Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2010/0194, whereby the claim application has been dismissed on two grounds; that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the case will come under self-inflected injury, under exception (a) to (e) of Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989 and not under Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act, 1989. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha has assailed the impugned award referring the Lower Court Records, which has been called for by Coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 09.01.2019 and has submitted that Satyendra Paswan along with other six members of his family were travelling from Danapur to Jasidih on 27.06.2010 by Train No. 3288DN and deceased, Satyendra Paswan fell down while trying to re-board the train, after purchasing water and eatables at Dadpur halt in between Danapur and Jasidih. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that father of the deceased, who is claimant, has categorically stated in his evidence as AW-1 that his son was possessing his ticket as he went to bring water and eatables at platform and other six tickets were with him, which was produced before the Tribunal. The victim died because of the rush and jolt at Dadpur halt. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 , initial burden will be on the claimant, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts and then burden will shift on the Railway and issue can be decided on the facts shown or attending circumstances. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon paragraph-29 of the aforesaid judgment:- 29. 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. 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. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi(Supra) the initial burden had been discharged by the claimant, while filing an affidavit by AW-1. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that even if the person died while re-boarding the train because of rush then also the claim application is maintainable in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in 2008 9 SCC 527 : AIR 2008 2 TSC 777 SC as mentioned in paragraph-15. In the present case, the case of the deceased will not fall under exception (a) to (e) of Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989, as such, compensation may be paid in view of revised compensation Rules issued by Government of India, Ministry of Railways made effective from 01.01.2017, as the accident took place on 27.06.2010 between Danapur to Jasidih, Rs. 4 lacs along with interest or Rs.8 lacs, whichever is higher. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Rule 8 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 empowers the Claims Tribunal, Ranchi to try the case as ticket was upto Jasidih, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi. 8. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon Rule 8 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989: “8. Place of filing application for compensation in accident or untoward incident claim. 8. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon Rule 8 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989: “8. Place of filing application for compensation in accident or untoward incident claim. -An application for compensation payable under Section 124 or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989) may be filed before the Bench having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the accident or untoward incident occurs or where the claimant normally resides.” 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that the impugned order may be set aside by allowing the Miscellaneous Appeal, directing the Railway to pay Rs.4 lacs with interest or Rs.8 lacs in view of the new revised Compensation Rules made effective from 01.01.2017. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha has supported the impugned order of dismissal passed by the Railway Tribunal and has also submitted that accident took place at Dadpur. The person (deceased) boarded the train at Danapur and as such, the Railway claim Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application, as this Claim Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the case for an occurrence, which has occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of Bihar on 27.06.2010. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Chapter-III Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, which is quoted hereunder: 13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal.-(1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act,— (a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for— (i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway; (ii) compensation payable under section 82-A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and (b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway. 11. As such, the claim application has been rightly dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 12. 11. As such, the claim application has been rightly dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that deceased, Satyendra Paswan was married man and widow is not the claimant, rather the father is the claimant and as such, the claim application ought to have been preferred by the widow. In view of Section 123 (b) of the Railways Act, 1989, the “dependent” means any of the following relatives of the deceased passenger, namely, (i) the wife, husband, son, daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parents; (ii) the parents, the minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and minor child of pre-deceased son, if dependent wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependent on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependent on the deceased passenger; 13. As such, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that father of a married son is not dependent in view of section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989. 14. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the Lower Court Records and the materials available on record. It appears that the affidavit has been filed by the appellant before the Tribunal that his son had a ticket with him. In view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra), this Court accepts the same and consider the deceased to be a bonafide passenger. So far negligence is concerned, the same has elaborately been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (Supra) and this Court accepts the same and set aside the impugned judgment allowing the Miscellaneous Appeal to pay compensation of either Rs.4 lacs along with interest or as per the revised compensation rules made applicable from 01.01.2017 i.e. Rs.8 lacs, whichever is higher. 15. So far the jurisdiction raised by learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no such plea was taken by the Railway before the learned Tribunal, which will be apparent from written statement. 15. So far the jurisdiction raised by learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no such plea was taken by the Railway before the learned Tribunal, which will be apparent from written statement. However, she has categorically stated that in view of Rule 8 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, the claim application is also maintainable at Ranchi as the ticket was from Danapur to Jasidih and admittedly Jasidih falls under the territorial jurisdiction of Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi. 16. So far the question of dependent as defined under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 is concerned, it appears that appellant is the father of the deceased, he is also dependent in view of Section 123(b)(ii), but widow comes under 123(b)(i), as such, the Railway Claims Tribunal shall release the amount in favour of the appellant after taking affidavit from the widow. If the widow has already left the family and re-married to another family, then such affidavit in detail be taken from the appellant before disbursement of the amount. Though an affidavit has already on record under Rule 14 Form-8, which is on Lower Court Records at page-32. 17. As such, this Court after perusal of the same hold that deceased, Satyendra Paswan was a bonafide passenger, in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra). He died in an untoward incident, as such, accident comes under 123 (c) of the Railways Act in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (Supra). The territorial jurisdiction lies with Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in view of Rule 8 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989. The amount shall be paid to the appellant, Bhimal Pasawan, as he has filed an affidavit, which is already on record, but he has not stated that wife of the deceased, Shanti Devi married with whom, when and whether the deceased has any issue from said wedlock with Shanti Devi. 18. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant is directed to file an affidavit in detail. 18. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant is directed to file an affidavit in detail. The Railway authority shall verify the same and if it is found correct, the claim amount to the tune of Rs.4 lacs along with interest or Rs.8 lacs as per the revised Compensation Rules effective from 01.01.2017, whichever is higher be paid to the claimant. 19. Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. 20. Office is directed to remit the Lower Court Records of this case to the Court concerned.