JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 29.07.2016, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA(IIU)RNC/2014/0015, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants seeking compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs along with interest on account of death of Sahdeo Ram, who died in an rail accident. 3. The facts of the case in short is that the deceased, Sahdeo Ram had gone to his sister's place on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and was returning from Bokaro to Ranchi on 31.08.2004. The said Sahdeo Ram purchased valid ticket to travel from Bokaro to Ranchi and had gone to the station and boarded the Maurya Express. Since there was heavy rush inside the compartment, when the train started moving, the said Sahdeo Ram fell down from the running train and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was admitted by the G.R.P. Bokaro to Bokaro General Hospital and in course of treatment he died on 20.09.2004. After the death of the deceased the son of the appellant namely Anil Ram gave a written application to the police on 22.09.2004, which was forwarded to Officer Incharge Bokaro Steel City Rail and on the basis of such statement U.D. Case bearing GRPS Bokaro U.D. Case No. 12/04 dated 28.09.2004 was registered. Thereafter, the police prepared inquest report and final report and submitted the same on 28.09.2004. The police investigated the case and prepared the inquest report in which on the basis of witnesses, it held that the deceased died due to accidental fall from running train. The police submitted the final report in which it has categorically been stated that deceased died as a result of an untoward incident. The doctor who has conducted the post mortem has also opined that the cause of death is due to severe injuries due to accident. It was the specific case of the appellants that deceased was a bona-fide passenger, which has also been corroborated by the appellant No. 2 by way of filing an affidavit before the learned Tribunal and also Rakesh Kumar Bhauiyan, who had gone to see off the deceased at the station. 4. It was the specific case of the appellants that deceased was a bona-fide passenger, which has also been corroborated by the appellant No. 2 by way of filing an affidavit before the learned Tribunal and also Rakesh Kumar Bhauiyan, who had gone to see off the deceased at the station. 4. Upon notice, respondent-Railway filed its written statement and denied that there was any untoward incident and submitted that the injuries were sustained by late Sahdeo Ram while he was walking on the Railway track and at that time he was dashed by a train coming from Ranchi. It was further alleged that this claim petition is based on concocted story and as such, the appellants-applicants are not entitled for any compensation. 5. After perusal of the documents and going through the averments made in the written statements, considering the evidences led and the examination of the witness, the learned Tribunal framed the followings issues: (I) Whether Sahdeo Ram is a bona-fide passenger as alleged? (II) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c-2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to him while travelling by Train Maurya Express from Bokaro Steel City to Ranchi Jn. On 31.08.2004? (III) Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed and other relief, if any? 6. The learned Tribunal after discussing cach and every issues in details came out with a finding that the applicants are not entitled for any compensation under Section 123(c-2) read with Section 124A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994 and accordingly, dismissed the claim application filed by the applicants-appellants. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant-appellants have knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court. 8. Ms. Chaitali Ch. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the applicants-appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has miserably failed to evaluate the authenticity of the Fardbayan of deceased. It is an established fact that deceased has lost his right leg and right hand and found lying unconscious in the railway track. However, just after the accident, the Railway Police has recorded the fardbayan of the deceased by putting his thumb impression, which is not acceptable, inasmuch as a person, whose leg and hand has got amputated and in the state of shock and unconsciousness, can he be in a position to record and understand such kind of fardbayan. However, just after the accident, the Railway Police has recorded the fardbayan of the deceased by putting his thumb impression, which is not acceptable, inasmuch as a person, whose leg and hand has got amputated and in the state of shock and unconsciousness, can he be in a position to record and understand such kind of fardbayan. Further, the fardbaya does not mention the thumb impression is of right hand or left hand. If it is of a right hand, which was already amputated after the accident, the fadbayan would not be an authentic piece of evidence. Learned counsel further argues that there is contradictory statements made in the fardbayan and in the DRM report. The fardbayan show the place of making the fardbayan is at Dy. S.S. Bokaro Station although in other records, such as DRM report, it has been stated that the fardbayan has been taken at hospital itself. Learned counsel argues that since the deceased was found lying in unconscious state and he was admitted to the Hospital, one fardbayan cannot be made at two different places until and unless some mischief has occurred. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the tact that in train accident cases, dead body and other articles cannot be found at the place of accident only. In various situations, the trains drags the body to some other place from the place of occurrence. Therefore, it is not necessary that the place as alleged is the place of occurrence of accident. To buttress her arguments, learned counsel for the applicants-appellants places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2018) 2 JBCJ 478 (SC). 9. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned CGC appearing for the respondent-UOI justifies the impugned order and submits that the appellants have failed to prove their case. There is no evidence by which it can be proved that the respondent-railway is in any way responsible to compensate the appellants for the death of Sahdeo Ram. Learned counsel further argues that there is no material on record to prove that there was any untoward incident as defined under the provision of the Railway Act, 1989, as alleged in the claim petition of the appellants. Learned counsel further argues that there is no material on record to prove that there was any untoward incident as defined under the provision of the Railway Act, 1989, as alleged in the claim petition of the appellants. Learned counsel further argues that no valid tickets were found from the possession of the deceases and further, there was no any eye witness to support the claim of the appellants, as such, it cannot be pretend that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger and it was an untoward incident for which the respondent-railway is liable to compensate the appellants. 10. Having heard the parties and upon considering the materials available on record and going through the Lower Court Records, this Court is of the considered view that case of the appellants requires consideration. The learned Tribunal has miserably failed to consider the authenticity of the fardbayan/dying declaration. From the Lower Court Record as well as evidences brought on record, it is not in quarrel that the leg and hand had got amputated and the deceased was in the state of shock and unconsciousness and was not in a position to get his farbayan recorded. The fardbayan casts cloud on the entire prosecution case as it is unbelievable that in such condition fardbayan/dying declaration can be recorded. The doctor was not even examined neither put to cross-examination. The claim of the Railways that no valid tickets were found from the possession of the deceased is not worthy to acceptable as tickets might have been lost during the accident. Learned Tribunal had committed an error in holding that it was not a case of untoward incident, though it has been clear from the inquest report prepared by the Railway Police and the final report in GRPS Bokaro U.D. Case No. 12 of 2004 that the deceased died due to falling down from a running train. The post mortem report also supports the case of the claimant. Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Amendment Act, 1994, states that untoward incident means “the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 11. The Railway can escape from the liability of payment of compensation only if the aforesaid circumstances are proved by them. The post mortem report also supports the case of the claimant. Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Amendment Act, 1994, states that untoward incident means “the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 11. The Railway can escape from the liability of payment of compensation only if the aforesaid circumstances are proved by them. In the instant case, no evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the Railway Authorities to bring or prove that the instant case falls within the ambit of any of the provisions mentioned in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, 2018 (2) JBCJ 478 (SC) in Para 17.4 has held that: “17.4 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 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.” 13. Further, this Hon’ble Court dealing with similar issue in case of Nikhat Parveen and Another vs. Union of India and Another in M.A. No. 151 of 2014, disposed of on 04.04.2019 held that: 10. I find that this case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra). Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court holds the incident in question to be an untoward incident and accordingly claimants are entitled to the compensation from Railways. I further find force in submission of learned counsel for the claimants that the claimants are entitled for higher amount of compensation in view of amended Act. 11. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court holds the incident in question to be an untoward incident and accordingly claimants are entitled to the compensation from Railways. I further find force in submission of learned counsel for the claimants that the claimants are entitled for higher amount of compensation in view of amended Act. 11. With respect to quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has held that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of accident but if the amount prescribed on the date of the award is higher than the amount payable on the date of the accident, then the claimants would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts. It is relevant to quote Para 15.4 of the said Judgment: “15.4. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards, which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon vs. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714 and Kalandi Charan Sahoo vs. General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 5608 of 2017, decided on 25th April, 2017, stands explained accordingly. 12. It is well settled that appeal is the continuation of the Claim Petition and power of the Appellate Court is co-extensive with that of the Claims Tribunal. Similar view has been taken in the case of Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir vs. Sardar Gurpreet Singh, 2014 (10) SCC 702 . Applying the principles laid down in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) in present case, the claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- in case of death with effect from 01.01.2017.” 14. Similar view has been taken in the case of Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir vs. Sardar Gurpreet Singh, 2014 (10) SCC 702 . Applying the principles laid down in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) in present case, the claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- in case of death with effect from 01.01.2017.” 14. In view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) as well as by this Court in Nikhat Parveen’s case (supra) and in view of the aforesaid observations, the judgment dated 02.04.2015, passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA(IIU) RNC/2014/0015 is fit to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-Railway is directed to pay Rs. 4,00,000 (Rupees four lakhs) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 26.10.2005 till its realization or Rs. 8,00,000 (Rupees Eight Lakhs), whichever is higher in light of notification dated 01.12.2016 effective from 01.01.2017 and in view of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rina Devi’s case, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. 16. Let the LCR be sent to the Court concerned at the earliest.