JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha and learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh. 2. The railway is appellant before this Court. The appeal has been preferred by the Railway against the judgment dated 23.04.2015 passed by learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2013/0028, whereby the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-has been awarded to the claimants i.e. (1) Smt. Jayanti Ojha (wife) – Rs. 1,50,000/-(2) Binayak Ojha (Major son) – Rs. 50,000/-(3) Pratibha Ojha (unmarried daughter) – Rs. 50,000/-(4) Prashant Ojha (major son) – Rs. 50,000/-and (5) Pratigya Ojha (minor daughter) – Rs. 1,00,000/-with 6% interest from the date of filing of claim application within 90 days and if the amount is not paid within 90 days, thereafter the interest will be paid at the rate of 9% per annum simple till the date of actual payment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned Award on the ground that the deceased Srikant Ojha was not a bonafide passenger nor the incident comes under the purview of Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act, as such, the impugned judgment is bad in law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the judgment awarding Rs. 4,00,000/-along with 9% interest as the deceased was a bonafide passenger in view of the evidence adduced by A.W.-1 Smt. Jayanti Ojha in para-2, which reads as follows: 2. That, he boarded the Train No. 12022 Express: (Barbil – Howrah Jansatabdi Express) at Barajamda Station. For going to Tata Nagar on : 18/10/2012. He had purchased 2nd (S/F) Ticket for his Journey. When the train left the Station, he informed me this fact over Mobile. This witness was cross-examined by the railway, but did not elucidate any fact contrary to it. Similarly, A.W.-2 Sri Bart Nath Ojha has stated in para-2 & 3, which is quoted hereunder:- 2. That, he had boarded the Train No. 12022 Exp. (Barbil – Howrah Jansatabdi Express) at Barajamda Station for going to Tata Nagar on : 17/10/2012. Unfortunately, he fell down from said running train accidentally due to heavy rush and sudden jerks of the train, at Rajkharsawan Station. Immediately, First-Aid treatment was provided to him. That, he had boarded the Train No. 12022 Exp. (Barbil – Howrah Jansatabdi Express) at Barajamda Station for going to Tata Nagar on : 17/10/2012. Unfortunately, he fell down from said running train accidentally due to heavy rush and sudden jerks of the train, at Rajkharsawan Station. Immediately, First-Aid treatment was provided to him. Thereafter, he was carried to Railway Hospital, Chakradharpur by G.R.P.P., Rajkharsawan and Railway Staff. 3. That, I was informed by GRPP/Railway Staff, Rajkharsawan Station in respect of aforesaid untoward incident on the same day (17-10-2012) at about 05.30 P.M., I was at Jora (Barbil) at that time. My address & Mobile No. was found in Small Diary of victim. This witness was also cross-examined by the Railway, but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.-2. After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials brought on record and perused the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 and Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 . Paragraph-29 of the Rina Devi (Supra) 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. Under the aforesaid background and in view of evidence of A.W.-1 as referred above victim/deceased Srikant Ojha was a bonafide passenger as nothing contrary to that have been brought on record by Railways, as such deceased was a bonafide passenger. 6. Paragraph-14 to 17 & 22 and 23) of the Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (Supra) judgment are re-produced below:- “14. Under the aforesaid background and in view of evidence of A.W.-1 as referred above victim/deceased Srikant Ojha was a bonafide passenger as nothing contrary to that have been brought on record by Railways, as such deceased was a bonafide passenger. 6. Paragraph-14 to 17 & 22 and 23) of the Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (Supra) judgment are re-produced below:- “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. 22. Strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendants' activity rather than, as in negligence, the way in which it is carried on. There are many activities which are so hazardous that they may constitute a danger to the person or property of another. The principle of strict liability states that the undertakers of these activities have to compensate for the damage caused by them irrespective of any fault on their part. As Fleming says "permission to conduct such activity is in effect made conditional on its absorbing the cost of the accidents it causes, as an appropriate item of its overheads". 23. Thus in cases where the principle of strict liability applies, the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the defendant may not have been at any fault. 24. The basis of the doctrine of strict liability is two fold (i) The people who engage in particularly hazardous activities should bear the burden of the risk of damage that their activities generate and (ii) it operates as a loss distribution mechanism, the person who does such hazardous activity (usually a corporation) being in the best position to spread the loss via insurance and higher prices for its products. 7. In view of evidence of A.W.-2, the incident comes under the provision of Untoward Incident. 8. The learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation at the relevant time in view of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which was Rs. 4,00,000/-along with 9% interest in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 3 SCC 714 , Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and Others Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372 and Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav reported in (2019) 3 SCC 410 . 9. Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 10. The Lower Court Records be sent down forthwith.