JUDGMENT : (Through : Video Conferencing) 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vijay Shanker Jha and learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Gautam Rakesh. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the dismissal of her claim application vide judgment dated 28.07.2009 passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No. TTU-99027/99. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is the wife of the deceased-Hira Lal Mahto, who died in a railway accident on 24.04.1999 while travelling in Train No. 2G.G.C. DN (passenger train) from Khalari to Gomoh. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim application by not considering the deceased to be a bonafide passenger, which is contrary to the record. So far untoward incident is concerned, it is not disputed by the Railway and the Tribunal, without assigning any reason, has dismissed the claim application. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that widow appellant could not prefer appeal within time and there is delay of 2423 days in preferring the appeal and for condonation of the same, I.A. No. 11203/2018 has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that considering it to be benevolent legislation and the appellant is a widow, this Court may sympathetically consider the same and may condone the delay, as appellant has very good case on merits. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Gautam Rakesh, has opposed the limitation petition on the ground that it is a huge delay of 2423 days and in support of that he has relied upon judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Board of Secondary Education of Assam Vs. Md. Sarifuzzaman & Others reported in (2003) 12 SCC 408 (paragraph-12) and and also relied upon judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & Another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448 , as such, delay may not be condoned and the miscellaneous appeal may be dismissed. 8. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & Another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448 , as such, delay may not be condoned and the miscellaneous appeal may be dismissed. 8. This Court has considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent and perused the materials brought on record including the Lower Court Record, which has already been called for by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.09.2019. 9. From perusal of record, it appears that Bandhani Devi, appellant has been examined as A.W.-1. She has categorically stated in her examination-in-chief at paragraph-5 that ;g fd bl nq?kZVuk esa esjs ifr dk cSx ftlesa dqN dkxtkr ,oa Vsªu fVdV rFkk 310 :i;k uxn [kks x;kA 10. No cross-examination has been made by the respondent on this point, nor any fact has been brought on record by way of cross-examination that appellant has not seen the incident through her own eyes. From the evidence of A.W.-2 Kalicharan Mahto, this Court has found that A.W.-2 has categorically stated in paragraph-1 that esjk e`rd HkkbZ esjs lkeus [ksykjh ls xkseks dk iSlsUtj Vsªu dk fVdV fnukad 24-4-99 dks dVk;k vkSj esjs gh mifLFkfr esa Vsªu la[;k&2 th th Mh ,u esa [ksykjh LVs'ku ij xkseks tkus ds fy, lokj gqvk lkFk esa lquhy dqekj o.kZoky oYn Jh vt; dqekj o.kZoky lkFk esa FksA In paragraph-2, it has been stated that ;g fd Vsªu esa vR;kf/kd HkhM+ FkhA In paragraph-4, it has been stated that ;g fd esjk nkok gS fd esjk HkkbZ vR;kf/kd HkhM+ ds otg ls Vsªu ls fxj x;kA and in paragraph-5, it has been stated that ;g fd bl nq?kZVuk esa ,d cSx ftlesa dqN dkxtkr vkSj Vsªu dk fVdV rFkk 350@& :0 uxn [kks x;kA 11. During cross-examination, the Railway has cross-examined this witness. This witness has categorically stated that “I saw them to purchase the ticket. I was with him till they got seat. Ticket was purchased at about 04.30 P.M. Deceased was purchased the ticket. Deceased was alone, so he purchased only one ticket. It is true which I told. Ticket fare was Rs.28/- only. I was helping them to board in the train. Heavy rush was in the train. Deceased was standing at the gate of the compartment.” 12. Ticket was purchased at about 04.30 P.M. Deceased was purchased the ticket. Deceased was alone, so he purchased only one ticket. It is true which I told. Ticket fare was Rs.28/- only. I was helping them to board in the train. Heavy rush was in the train. Deceased was standing at the gate of the compartment.” 12. From perusal of evidence of A.W.-3 Sunil Kumar Barnwal, this Court has found that this witness has also stated in paragraph-1 that ;g fd eSa e`rd ghjk yky egrks ds lkFk fnukad 24-4-99 dks Vsªu la0&2 th th lh Mkmu esa [ksykjh ls cksdkjks FkeZy ds fy, pys Fks] e`rd dk HkkbZ e`rd dks NksM+us [ksykjh LVs'ku vk;k FkkA In paragraph-2, it has been stated that ;g fd Vªsu esa vR;kf/kd HkhM+ FkhA In paragraph-3, it has been stated that ;g fd bl nq?kZVuk esa e`rd dk cSx [kks x;kA 13. During cross-examination, this witness has stated that e`rd ftl le; fVdV [kjhn jgk Fkk ml le; mlds HkkbZ Hkh esjs lkFk FksA fVdV [kjhnrs le; ge yksx rhu O;fDr FksA eSa vkSj ghjkyky egrks ,d lkFk Vsªu esa p ढsA Vsªu esa dkQh HkhM+ FkhA 14. After considering the evidences of all these three witnesses, as referred above, this Court has come to a finding that deceased Hira Lal Mahto was a bonafide passenger in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 (Paragraph-29). 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) 15. 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) 15. So far railway is concerned nothing has been brought to suggest that it was not an untoward incident. Thus, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 , the incident was untoward incident. 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 (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. 16. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant miscellaneous appeal is condoned and I.A. No. 11203/2018 is allowed. 17. The impugned judgment dated 28.07.2009 passed by Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. TTU-99027/99 is also set aside in view of the discussion made above. 18. The Railway is directed to pay compensation to the appellant as per the prevalent rate as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 i.e. Rs.4 lacs with interest @ 7.5 % per annum or Rs.8 lacs as per the revised Rule of 2016, whichever is higher from the date of filing of claim application. 19. Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed. 20. 19. Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed. 20. However, appellant is not entitled for any interest for the period of from the date of filing of the instant miscellaneous appeal i.e. 17.06.2016 till today i.e. 23.09.2020, as the appeal is kept pending and several adjournments have been taken by the appellants. 21. The Lower Court Records be sent down forthwith.