JUDGMENT : (Through : Video Conferencing) 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh and learned counsel for the railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh. 2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 19.02.2015 passed by Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. TAU/RNC/2005/0043, whereby the claim application of the appellants has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh has submitted that there is delay of 148 days in preferring the appeal and for condonation of the same, I.A. No.6115/2015 has been preferred, copy of the same has already been handed over to learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the appellants are poor persons and they are resident of Jharia (Dhanbad), they could not prefer the appeal within time, as such, delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned, as the appellants have a very good case. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that applicants/appellants are father and mother of the deceased, Pramod Kumar Keshri, who died in a railway accident. While he was travelling in 2nd class from Dhanbad to Howrah in Shaktipunj Express Train No.1447 DN on 12.10.2005, he fell down near Chhotaambona railway station and died on the spot on 12.10.2005 at the age of 25 years. The information regarding such untoward incident was given to the appellants by the railway police and thereafter, the dead body was identified as the son of the appellants, but in the process tickets have been lost. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased was travelling with his friend namely, Mani Shankar Keshri, who has disclosed before the appellants that ticket was with the deceased, but the said Mani Shankar Keshri has not been examined. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that with regard to the ticket, the document filed by the railway i.e. Exhibit-R1 & Exhibit R2 are sufficient to establish that deceased was a bonafide passenger. 8. The claimant A.W.-1 has also stated that Mani Shankar Keshri has also told him that deceased had purchased ticket. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. 8. The claimant A.W.-1 has also stated that Mani Shankar Keshri has also told him that deceased had purchased ticket. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 (paragraph-29), this Court may consider deceased to be a bonafide passenger. 9. 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) 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the incident of death was untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of Railways Act and has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 , the appellants are entitled for compensation. 11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 (vide 'Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn. p. 247). 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. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in view of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the compensation was Rs. 4,00,000/-, which is enhanced to Rs. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in view of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the compensation was Rs. 4,00,000/-, which is enhanced to Rs. 8,00,000/- in view of amendment made in the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016, which is applicable from 01.01.2017, as such, this court may direct the respondent to pay the compensation as the deceased was bonafide passenger and his death is an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railway Act. 13. Learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh, opposed the prayer and has submitted that delay may not be condoned, as there is a delay of 148 days and the ticket of the deceased has not been produced nor Mani Shankar Keshri has been examined in this case, as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application and this court may not interfere with the same. 14. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, since it is a benevolent legislation and the appellants are father and mother of the deceased and in view of the reason explained in the interlocutory application, the delay of 148 days in filing the instant miscellaneous appeal is condoned. 15. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I.A. No. 6115/2015 is hereby allowed. 16. So far merit of this case is concerned, the deceased, Pramod Kumar Keshri was a travelling in 2nd class from Dhanbad to Howrah in Shaktipunj Express Train No.1447 DN on 12.10.2005, he fell down near Chhotaambona railway station due to the rush, as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (Supra), the accident is an untoward incident. 17. So far the bonafide passenger is concerned, the appellants has filed an affidavit that they were disclosed by Mani Shankar Keshri that the deceased has purchased ticket, which was with him, the same fact has also strengthen from Exhibit-R1 and R2. 17. So far the bonafide passenger is concerned, the appellants has filed an affidavit that they were disclosed by Mani Shankar Keshri that the deceased has purchased ticket, which was with him, the same fact has also strengthen from Exhibit-R1 and R2. The death of the deceased caused in railway accident, which has been proved by documents Exhibit-A1 and Exhibit-A2, as such, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment dated 19.02.2015 passed by the learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi with a direction to railway to pay a sum of Rs.4 lacs along with interest @ 7.5% per annum or Rs.8 lacs as per the revised Rule of 2016 to the appellants, whichever is higher from the date filing of the claim application. 18. Since several adjournments have been taken by the appellants, as such, this Court is not inclined to grant interest for the period from the date of filing of instant miscellaneous appeal i.e. 16.10.2015 till today i.e. 23.09.2020. 19. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous appeal is hereby allowed.