JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. K. L. Ojha and learned counsel for the respondent -Union of India, through the General Manager of East Central Railway, Mr. Prabhash Chandra Sinha. 2. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.08.2014 passed by learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2010/0175, whereby the claim application of the claimant, Gobardhan Ram, father of the deceased-Kundan Kumar has been deprecated by the learned Tribunal on grounds that claimant has not filed original ticket in support of his contention, rather has filed photocopy of the ticket, which has been annexed with lower Court record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the learned Tribunal has considered the incident to be an untoward incident under the provision of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, but because of none production of original ticket, the learned Tribunal has considered deceased Kundan Kumar as not a bonafide passenger and thus, rejected the claim application. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 , even on the basis of an affidavit the passenger/ deceased has to be considered as a bonafide passenger. Paragraph-29 of the aforesaid judgment is profitably quoted hereunder: “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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in a benevolent legislation, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken such view of the matter. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in a benevolent legislation, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken such view of the matter. In the present claim case, the claimant has atleast filed the photocopy of the ticket and as such, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the spirit of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as no contrary material has been brought on record by the Railway. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the passenger on a train and quoted paragraphs-14, 15, 16 and 17 as under:- “14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression. 15. Section 2(29) of the Railways Act defines “passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident” to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression. 15. Section 2(29) of the Railways Act defines “passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident” to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A of the Railways Act with which we are concerned states: “124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.—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 and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the Railway Administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to— (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, ‘passenger’ includes— (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.” (emphasis supplied) 16. The accident in which Smt Abja died is clearly not covered by the proviso to Section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124-A. Hence, in our opinion, the present case is clearly covered by the main body of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and not its proviso. 17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. 17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.” 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that the claim application of the appellant is fit to be allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent -Union of India, through the General Manager of East Central Railway, Mr. Prabhash Chandra Sinha has vehemently opposed the same, but has fairly conceded that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has not been overruled till date. 9. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra), the deceased Kundan Kumar was a bonafide passenger, whose photocopy of the ticket has been annexed and brought on record and the same has not been denied by the Railway as it was not valid for the passenger, who boarded the train and in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra), the claimant is entitled for compensation. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. 11. The Railway/respondent is directed to indemnify the compensation at the rate of Rs.4 lacs along with interest as the incident is of dated 19.05.2010 or Rs.8 lacs in view of the recent notification dated 22.12.2016 issued by Ministry of Railways in G.S.R. 1165 (E), which is applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2017, whichever is higher to the claimant in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 12. Accordingly, it is expected that Railway shall indemnify the compensation within period of 90 days.