JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Smt. Basanti Devi and Sonu Kumar are the claimants, whose claim application has been dismissed in terms of judgment dated 25.02.2013 passed by learned Member (Technical) in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2009/0075. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the DRM has admitted in its report that the occurrence is an untoward incident, but there was no ticket in the possession of the deceased, as such, the deceased Gautam Goswami has not been considered by the learned Tribunal as a bonafide passenger. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has framed five issues on 07.02.2012, which are as follows:- 1. Was the deceased a bonafide passenger by the train, as alleged? 2. Was there any untoward incident – involving the deceased – envisaged under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 as alleged? 3. Whether the applicant is the only dependent of the deceased as alleged as per Section 123 (b)(i) to (iv) of the Railways Act, 1989? 4. Whether the applicant is entitled to any compensation as per Section 123 (b) of the Railways Act, 1989, and if so, the quantum for each and interest claimed, if any? 5. To what other relief, if any? 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in an unfortunate incident son of Basanti Devi namely, Gautam Goswami died while travelling in a train and his dead body was found near Pole No. 344/32 and 344/34. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that three witnesses have been examined in this case. Basanti Devi, mother of the deceased has been examined as A.W.-1. She has categorically stated at para-3 of her deposition that “That, he was travelling in Second Class general compartment with general ticket of dated 28.03.2009 from Dhanbad Junction to Koderma Junction” and Shankar Goswami, elder brother of the deceased has been examined as A.W.-3. He has categorically stated at para-6 of her deposition that “That, my deceased brother was having valid and effective ticket from Dhanbad Jn. to Koderma Jn. but the same was missing in the spot”. Both the witnesses have stated that the deceased had purchased ticket and he was travelling as bonafide passenger in general compartment with second class ticket. He has categorically stated at para-6 of her deposition that “That, my deceased brother was having valid and effective ticket from Dhanbad Jn. to Koderma Jn. but the same was missing in the spot”. Both the witnesses have stated that the deceased had purchased ticket and he was travelling as bonafide passenger in general compartment with second class ticket. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied 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). Para29 of the aforesaid judgment is profitably quoted hereinbelow:- “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) 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgment and also in view of the evidence adduced by A.W.-1 – Basanti Devi & A.W.-3 – Shankar Goswami, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to issue no.1 is erroneous and may be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the fact of the DRM report as mentioned in impugned judgment is at page-16 that DRM report admits about the untoward incident, as such, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, with regard to issue no.2 may also be set aside with regard to Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the fact of the DRM report as mentioned in impugned judgment is at page-16 that DRM report admits about the untoward incident, as such, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, with regard to issue no.2 may also be set aside with regard to Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act. 9. So far Issue No. (3) with regard to Section 123 (b) (i) to (iv) of the Railways Act is concerned, the other brothers have not claimed compensation, the Tribunal cannot debar the dependents of the deceased from fruits of the beneficial legislation on such grounds that all legal heirs have not been filed claim application, as such, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal may be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway, Md. Jalisur Rahman, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly recorded the finding and has tried to distinguish the case of the claimants from the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (Supra) where in para-29, the Apex Court has held that “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.” 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has submitted that since there is a contrary evidence on record that the deceased Gautam Goswami was a magazine seller or he was unemployed, as such, this Court may not consider the evidence of A.W.-1 Basanti Devi (mother of the deceased) and A.W.-3 Shankar Goswami (elder brother of the deceased), whose credentials are not worth to be relied upon, as such, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment as learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the same. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment as well as L.C.R. particularly the evidence of A.W.-1 Basanti Devi (mother of the deceased) and A.W.-3 Shankar Goswami (elder brother of the deceased) as referred above. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment as well as L.C.R. particularly the evidence of A.W.-1 Basanti Devi (mother of the deceased) and A.W.-3 Shankar Goswami (elder brother of the deceased) as referred above. Since the DRM report as mentioned in the impugned judgment suggest that DRM's Report admits about the untoward incident, as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra), this Court is inclined to consider the deceased Gautam Goswami to be a bonafide passenger as no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Railway to disbelieve the same. Accordingly, this Court finds that the deceased Gautam Goswami to be a bonafide passenger and in view of the DRM report, the incident to be Untoward Incident. 13. So far Section 123 (b)(i) to (iv) of the Railways Act is concerned, though there is provision to file application by any of the dependents, but the amount will be distributed amongst all the dependents out of the total amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-or Rs. 8,00,000/-, as the case may be, as such, if some legal heirs have not filed claim application, it does not debar the rightful claimants for getting the benefit of beneficial legislation. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to Section 123 (b)(i) to (iv) of the Railways Act is also set aside. 14. The claimants are entitled for compensation as the occurrence was of dated 29.03.2009, the claim application was filed on 30.10.2009, the judgment was passed by the learned Tribunal on 25.02.2013 and the appeal was preferred before this Court on 29.10.2013. In the meantime, the Railway has amended the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 by bringing the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016, which has been made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2017, whereby the compensation has been enhanced from Rs. 4,00,000/-to Rs. 8,00,000/-in case of death, which comes under Part-I and the claimants are entitled for compensation @ Rs. 8,00,000/-or Rs. 4,00,000/-with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual payment, whichever is higher in favour of the claimants in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. 8,00,000/-or Rs. 4,00,000/-with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual payment, whichever is higher in favour of the claimants in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav reported in 2019 (3) SCC 410 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph-11 as under:- “11. …................... For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs 4,00,000. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs 8,00,000, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs 8,00,000. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs 8,00,000 the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs 8,00,000. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration.” 15. Accordingly, this Court set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal directing the respondent -railway to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- or Rs. 4,00,000/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum Simple Interest from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual payment, whichever is higher in favour of the claimants. 16. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous appeal is allowed. 17. Let the L.C.R. be sent down.