JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. Appellants have preferred this appeal against dismissal of their claim application vide judgment dated 11.04.2017 passed in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/79/2016 on the ground that the deceased-Asha Devi was not a bonafide passenger and the theory of purchase of ticket as disclosed by the applicant at the time of cross-examination that he had purchased ticket for his wife is not believable. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Manish Kumar has submitted that admittedly the deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger from Dhanbad and there is dispute with regard to the fact that whether ticket was up to Tetulmari or Matari. Since the occurrence took place after Tetulmari Railway Station towards the next station i.e. Matari Railway Station, as such, the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the deceased-Asha Devi not a bona fide passenger and repudiated the claim. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claimant-Sri Pappu Thakur @ Pappu Pramanik, husband of the deceased has categorically stated in para 9 of his cross-examination that he had admitted his wife at PMCH-Dhanbad, on 13.05.2016, as she was ill and after relieving by Doctor on 16.05.2016, he purchased the ticket up to Matari Station and his wife, Asha Devi boarded the train. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submission has placed reliance upon 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 para 29 wherein it has been held that “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.” Learned counsel for the appellants has thus, submitted that the claimants are entitled for compensation as no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Railways and the incident took place on 16.05.2016, as such, the claimants are entitled for a compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-with interest or Rs.8,00,000/-as per the new amended rules which is applicable from 01.01.2017 whichever is higher as it is a benevolent legislation. 4. Learned counsel for the Railway-Gautam Rakesh has relied upon para 3 of the impugned judgment which is being profitably quoted hereunder:- “3. 4. Learned counsel for the Railway-Gautam Rakesh has relied upon para 3 of the impugned judgment which is being profitably quoted hereunder:- “3. The respondent has denied the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. It is further stated that according to fardbayan of Pappu Thakur his wife Asha Devi was admitted in PMCH/Dhanbad for her treatment on 13.05.2016 and without informing her husband she left the hospital and on search her dead body was found on 17.05.2016 on the Railway track. Thus it cannot be said that she fell down from any train. Therefore the applicants are not entitled to any relief. Later on the DRM's report based on the enquiry done under “The Railway Passengers (Manners of Investigation of untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003” has been filed.” Learned counsel for the respondent/Railway has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly repudiated the claim of the claimant, considering the incidence not to be an untoward as defined under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same. 5. Perused the Lower Court Records, which has been called for by a co-ordinate Bench in terms of order dated 09.05.2018. Exhibit-A3, i.e. inquest report at column nos.8 and 9 categorically mentioned that the deceased died because of fall from unknown running train. The post-mortem report as Exhibit-A4 does show that cause of death is due to head injury. As per the report submitted by the ASI, Binod Kumar Singh, he has categorically stated that vadi/claimant, Pappu Thakur @ Pappu Pramanik has stated before him that his wife was found dead, who left hospital without informing him and boarded train at Dhanbad Railway Station for her paternal house and she died because of accident. The claim application has been filed by the claimant-Pappu Thakur @ Pappu Pramanik wherein it has been categorically stated in para nos.6(i) and 6(ii):- 6(i) that the deceased-Asha Devi was wife of the applicant-Pappu Thakur @ Pappu Pramanik. On the fateful day i.e. on 16.05.2016. The deceased was going to Tetulmari Railway Station from Dhanbad Junction by the Asansol-Gaya Passenger E.M.U. train after purchasing a IInd class valid journey ticket, she boarded in the general bogie of the said train as a bonafide passenger. On the fateful day i.e. on 16.05.2016. The deceased was going to Tetulmari Railway Station from Dhanbad Junction by the Asansol-Gaya Passenger E.M.U. train after purchasing a IInd class valid journey ticket, she boarded in the general bogie of the said train as a bonafide passenger. (ii) That in course of her journey there was heavy rush of the passengers of the said train, so she was standing near the gate inside the compartment and when the said train was running between Nichitpur and Matari Railway Station all of sudden she accidentally fell down from the said running train due to by Pull & Push and jostling amongst the passenger, resulting she sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. 6. The said Pappu Thakur-claimant has also filed an affidavit as A.W-1 and has categorically stated in paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 which are quoted hereunder:- “3. That on the fateful day i.e. on 16.05.2016 my wife was going to Tetulmari Rly. Station from Dhanbad Junction by the Asansol-Gaya E.M.U. Passenger train after purchasing a IInd class valid journey ticket, she boarded in the general bogie of the said train as a bonafide passenger. 4. That the valid Railway journey ticket from Dhanbad Jn. To Tetulmari Rly. Station has been lost due to in untoward incident. 5. That there is an usually heavy rush in the general bogies of the said train and on the date of the accident also, there was heavy rush gathered in the general bogies of the said train. 6. That in course of her journey there was heavy rush of the Passengers of the said train, so she was standing near the gate inside the compartment and when the said train was running between Nichitpur and Matari Railway Station all of sudden she accidentally fell down from the said running train due to by Pull & Push and jostling amongst the Passengers, Resulting she sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. ” 7. From perusal of cross-examination at para 9 the claimant has categorically stated that he had purchased a ticket for his wife, who boarded the train. 8. ” 7. From perusal of cross-examination at para 9 the claimant has categorically stated that he had purchased a ticket for his wife, who boarded the train. 8. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 para 29 that “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.” 9. The plea which has been taken by the Railway that even if victim is admitted to be a bonafide passenger from Dhanbad to Tetulmari but her further journey from Tetulmari to next Station i.e. Matari was not bona fide, this submission of learned counsel for the Railway is not acceptable to this Court as the lady could not alight from the train at Tetulmari Railway Station because of the heavy rush as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant and before reaching the next Station i.e. Matari she fell down. This is reasonable explanation in favour of the claimants. 10. This Court has found that the learned Tribunal has miserably failed in appreciating the evidence in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) and nothing has been brought on record to discard the affidavit. 11. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgment of dismissal vide judgment dated on 11.04.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No.OA(IIU)/RNC/79/2016 is hereby set aside, as the deceased was victim of an untoward incident, as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989. 12. Accordingly, the respondent/Railway is directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-with interest as the incident is of dated 16.05.2016 or Rs.8,00,000/-as per the new amended rules which is applicable from 01.01.2017 whichever is higher. 13. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. 14. It is expected that Railway shall indemnify the awarded amount within a period of 90 days to the appellants/claimants. 15. Let LCR be sent down to the court concerned at once.