JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 29th January 2020, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Case No.OA(IIu)/NGP/60/2018, whereby claim application filed by the wife of one Sahebrao, who purportedly died in an untoward incident while traveling from Chalisgaon to Nashik on 26th August 2016 came to be dismissed. 2. The brief facts are that Sahebrao Devchand Salve purportedly was traveling from Chalisgaon to Nashik Road by 51182 Bhusawal Devlali Passenger Train and fell down from the running train at K.M. No.325/28-00 on up railway line between Chalisgaon to Hirapur and died sustaining serious injuries. It is claimed that the deceased was having a 2nd Class railway journey ticket from Chalisgaon to Nashik Road, but the same was lost in an untoward incident, and therefore, not recovered in the Panchanama. It is the case of the Appellants/Claimants that due to over crowding in the compartment, the deceased fell down from the running train and sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. It is submitted that under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, the “Railways Act”), the Railway Administration is solely responsible for the accidental death of the Sahebrao. It is also alleged that the Railway Administration should also be held responsible for selling tickets in excess without considering the fact whether there is space for passengers in the train or not. 3. After the death of Sahebrao, the Appellant - wife along with other members of the family filed a claim application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, before the Railway Claims Tribunal at Nagpur (for short, “Tribunal”), claiming a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. Ms. Sumesha Chaudhari, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants/Claimants would submit that it is undisputed that the incident by which the deceased met with his death was an untoward accident and according to her, the same was due to the negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. She would submit that therefore, the claim as prayed for should have been awarded as compensation in accordance with settled law. The learned counsel would submit that just because a ticket was not found on the deceased does not mean that he was not a passenger. She would submit that moreover, the Railway Administration has not been able to prove that the deceased was not a passenger. The learned counsel would submit that just because a ticket was not found on the deceased does not mean that he was not a passenger. She would submit that moreover, the Railway Administration has not been able to prove that the deceased was not a passenger. She would submit that there are several decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it has been held that the initial onus is on the Railway Administration to prove that the deceased fell within the exceptions of Section 124-A of the Act of 1989 and not on the claimants. It is only once the burden is discharged that the onus shifts on the claimants to rebut the same, which occasion did not arise in this case as the initial burden was not discharged by the Railway Administration. 5. The learned counsel would submit that it is also settled law that just because a ticket is not found on the passenger, he cannot be held to be a passenger, who is not bona fide. The learned counsel would submit that basically there are two issues based on which the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellants/claimants. First is the issue of dependency, she would submit that this issue has been held in favour of the claimants, however, with respect to the issue of bona fide passenger, although AW-2 - son of the deceased had purchased a ticket for his father and also boarded him on to the train, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of bona fide passenger holding that no ticket was recovered from the spot nor is there any such finding in the inquest panchnama. Learned counsel would submit that merely on the basis of a contradiction in the time of boarding of the deceased viz. AW-2 having said that the deceased boarded the train between 7.30 to 8.00 p.m., whereas the train signal register notes arrival of the train as 8.23 p.m., which issue has somehow got highlighted and the claim has come to be rejected. She would submit that the statement made by AW-2 would have contained tentative timings and not the exact timings: However, that does not in any manner take away the fact that the deceased did board the train; there is no finding also to show that the deceased did not board the train. She would submit that the statement made by AW-2 would have contained tentative timings and not the exact timings: However, that does not in any manner take away the fact that the deceased did board the train; there is no finding also to show that the deceased did not board the train. Just on the basis that no ticket was recovered, cannot take away the right of the claimants to receive the compensation. 6. Learned counsel would submit that even to refer to the fact that after passing of the said train, there was a goods train, whose driver noticed the dead body would not really disturb the case of the claimants to suggest that another train ran over the deceased or that it was a case of suicide. The learned counsel would submit that in-fact if the dead body was noticed by the driver of another train, then the Loco Pilot should have immediately informed of the same on a walkie talkie, however, there is no record that such information was passed on as per the norms. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the Post-Mortem Report (for short, “PM Report”) at page A-89 of the record and proceedings refers to the probable cause of death as cardio respiratory failure due to severe head injury, even the inquest panchanama at page A-84 of the Record and Proceedings refers to the death of the deceased, the forehead was ruptured, the skull was broken and the flesh from the head was seen to be hanging. The learned counsel would also refer to para 25 on page A-85 of the inquest panchanama to submit that the deceased had fallen down from the unknown running train and sustained severe head injury and died due to heavy bleeding. The learned counsel for the claimants would therefore submit that the entire evidence goes to show that the deceased died due to falling from a train due to head injury. She would submit that there is no other evidence nor even an iota of suggestion that it was a case of a suicide or attempt to suicide or self inflicted injury or the deceased’s own criminal act or any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity or that the death was by a natural cause of disease or medical or surgical treatment. She would therefore submit that the appeal be allowed and the claimants be granted compensation as prayed for. 7. On the other hand Ms Chaubey learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Railway would submit that there is no evidence to show that the son has made his father sit in the compartment as there is no mention of the compartment in which the son made his father sit in. She draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 2 on page 24 of the appeal memo and submits that if the article such as Aadhar Card, phone diary, bank passbook, spectacles and old railway ticket was found on the person of the deceased, there was no reason as to why, the relevant journey ticket from Chalisgaon to Nashik could not have been recovered from his person, if infact he had the same. She would submit that non recovery of the journey ticket goes to prove that the deceased was not having the ticket otherwise the same would have been recovered from him alongwith the other things. 8. She would submit that the AW-2, who is the son of the deceased is stated to have purchased the ticket for his father and boarded him on the subject train, but again the timing mentioned by him in his statement given to the Railway Police Force and the statement recorded in the train signal register is contradictory : AW-2 having said that the deceased boarded the train between 7.30 to 8.00 p.m., whereas the train signal register notes arrival of the train as 8.23 p.m.; that it appears that AW-2 has only been brought to cover up the bona fide passenger issue of the deceased, and therefore, AW-2’s testimony does not inspire confidence and raises doubt and suspicion as to whether the deceased even boarded the train. She would submit that there is no cogent evidence proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the onus has not been discharged as required pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, AIR 2018 SC 2362 in paragraph 17.4 thereof. 9. The learned counsel would also submit that there is no recording of any jerky movement in the train or alarm chain pulling. She would submit that there is no finding that the deceased fell down from the train. 9. The learned counsel would also submit that there is no recording of any jerky movement in the train or alarm chain pulling. She would submit that there is no finding that the deceased fell down from the train. Relying upon the PM Report in the Record and Proceedings as well as the inquest panchanama, she would submit that the cause of the death is cardio respiratory failure and it nowhere indicates that the same is due to falling down from the train. She would therefore submit that no interference is called for in the order of the Tribunal and the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants be dismissed. 10. I have heard Ms Sumesha Chaudhari, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Ms Neerja Chaubey, learned counsel for the respondent/Railway and with their able assistance, I have perused the papers, proceedings in the matter and also given my anxious consideration to the case at hand. 11. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to appreciate the statutory provisions and settled law in matters involving railway accidents. The relevant provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, are set forth as under : “Section 123. Definitions.-In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in Section 124; (b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (c) “untoward incident” means- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124. Definitions.-In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in Section 124; (b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (c) “untoward incident” means- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124. Extent of liability.-When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, 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 has suffered a loss 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 a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident. Explanation.-For the purposes of this Section “passenger” includes a railway servant on duty. Section 124A. Explanation.-For the purposes of this Section “passenger” includes a railway servant on duty. Section 124A. 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 purpose 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.] 14. In exercise of power under Section 129 of the 1989 Act, the Central Government framed rules called Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The rules provided for a schedule prescribing the amount of compensation payable in respect of death and injuries. The said rules have been amended w.e.f. 1st January, 2017 by notification dated 22nd December, 2016 substituting the schedule by higher amount of compensation.” 12. The rules provided for a schedule prescribing the amount of compensation payable in respect of death and injuries. The said rules have been amended w.e.f. 1st January, 2017 by notification dated 22nd December, 2016 substituting the schedule by higher amount of compensation.” 12. It would also be pertinent to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, 2008 ACJ 1895 where the Hon’ble Apex Court has, after considering the aforementioned provisions, come to a conclusion that legally it would not make any difference whether the deceased fell down or was trying to get into a train when the deceased fell down or was inside the train as the same would be covered within the definition of accidental falling down and since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow or technical one. 13. It is clear that Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents and if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. It is settled law that 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. Section 124-A proceeds on this basis. Though, there are exceptions provided in Section 124-A, but that does not take away the nature of strict liability imposed on the Railway Administration for being liable to pay compensation. 14. Infact in order to avoid the liability cast under Section 124-A by seeking recourse to the exceptions in the proviso viz. (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, the onus would be on the Railway Administration to prove that the passenger died or suffered injury due to the acts referred to therein. It cannot be that the onus is on the Claimants that the deceased did not die or was not injured due to the acts referred to therein. Unless the Railway administration proves beyond reasonable doubt, the strict liability attached to the Railway Administration pursuant to Section 124-A cannot be avoided. 15. Paragraph 16.6 of the decision in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) is also usefully quoted as under : “16.6 We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’……..” 16. That being the law, let us consider what has happened in this case. It is not in dispute that the husband of the claimant-wife viz. Shri Sahebrao Devchand Salve died on 26th August 2016, his body being found lying beside UP line at km. 325/26-28 in between Chalisgaon and Hirapur. The evidence on affidavit by AW-2, who is the son of the deceased at page A-121 of the Record and Proceedings, clearly indicates that AW-2 alongwith his father came to Chalisgaon on motorcycle, purchased a traveling ticket for his father, who was going to see his relatives in Nashik. AW-2 boarded his father in the general compartment of Bhusawal Devlali passenger. AW-2 has stated that he came to know of the incident when he was returning home near Mehunbare when he received a phone call from the police about the falling down, after which, he came back to Chalisgaon. In the meantime, the Police had shifted the dead body to the hospital, where after seeing the dead body in the hospital he identified the same and also identified the articles recovered from the deceased viz. one old ticket, phone diary, spectacles, bank passbook as belonging to his father. AW-2 has confirmed that the police had recorded his statement on page 29-A and that the content was true and correct. He has stated that his father fell down from the running train and died. one old ticket, phone diary, spectacles, bank passbook as belonging to his father. AW-2 has confirmed that the police had recorded his statement on page 29-A and that the content was true and correct. He has stated that his father fell down from the running train and died. It is also stated in the said affidavit that the contents in the Statutory Report that his father was roaming near the railway track was totally wrong and incorrect as the distance between from Dhule to Chalisgaon is near about 50 Kms, and therefore, the question of his roaming nearby the railway track would not arise. I have also perused the cross- examination of AW-2 at page A-124 of the Record and Proceedings which confirms the contents in the evidence on affidavit by applicant no.2 as there is no contradiction. I have also perused the evidence of RW-1, who is the Deputy Superintendent, Chalisgaon Railway Station to confirm that he was informed by the driver of AC Cupple light Engine by walkie talkie on 26th August 2016 at 22.10 hours that one unknown person was lying behind UP track between Hirapur to Chalisgaon at Km. 325/26-28 and he immediately sent memo to RPF/GRP Chalisgaon and informed PWI Chalisgaon Shri Dvivedi and Section Controller and Deputy Punctuality Bhusawal for necessary action. I have also perused the Postmortem report at page A-89, which mentions the probable cause of death of the deceased as cardio respiratory failure due to severe head injury. In my view, even if the death was due to a run over, that does not prove that the death was not due to an accidental fall or not within the wide meaning attributed to the definition of untoward incident in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others where the Apex Court says, “Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion, the latter of the above-mentioned two interpretations, i.e., the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred…..”. There is also no evidence or material to suggest that the death was not due to an untoward incident. 17. Hence, in our opinion, the latter of the above-mentioned two interpretations, i.e., the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred…..”. There is also no evidence or material to suggest that the death was not due to an untoward incident. 17. A perusal of the evidence in the Record and Proceedings and the Postmortem Report does not, in any way, suggest that the deceased committed suicide or attempted to suicide or inflicted any injury upon himself or engaged in any criminal act or committed any act in a state of intoxication or insanity or that he died of any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment. The Postmortem Report clearly suggest that the death was due to head injury. The description in the Postmortem Report of the manner in which the flesh was hanging can in no way suggest that such an injury could have been self inflicted or a result of suicide or an attempt to suicide or his own criminal act. There is no evidence to even suggest that it was an act committed in a state of intoxication or insanity. There is no material to suggest that the death was by a natural cause or a disease that the deceased was suffering from or a surgical or medical treatment that he was undergoing. Therefore, none of the exceptions in the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act of 1989 would assist the case of the Railway Administration. 18. Coming to the often raised defence of the Railway Administration that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, it would be first pertinent to refer to the definition of passenger as contained in explanation to Section 124-A of the Act of 1989, which for the purpose of convenience is set forth as under: “Explanation - For the purpose 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.” 19. The aforesaid explanation is an inclusive definition. Settled principles of interpretation for inclusive definitions suggest that such definitions are not exhaustive, but wide enough to include other situations as may arise during the implementation of the legislation. The aforesaid explanation is an inclusive definition. Settled principles of interpretation for inclusive definitions suggest that such definitions are not exhaustive, but wide enough to include other situations as may arise during the implementation of the legislation. The evidence of AW-2 suggests that the body of the deceased had been shifted by the police to the hospital; it is quite possible that the ticket would have got lost in the shifting. Also, the deceased was carrying a bag of some food items and water, which does not find mention in any of the pieces of evidence referred to herein; would that mean that the hand bag of water and food items were not carried by the deceased or would that mean that the said witness was not credible; a person who falls down from a railway train could not possibly have known that he is going to fall down and have the bag in his hand, which may be found on his person, when the body is noticed. It may also well be that the ticket was in the said bag in which there were food items and water which was also not recovered around the body. It is also not unknown that not all the items which are found on the person of the deceased or alongwith the deceased are listed in the panchanama. The Railway Administration would do better to device more advanced methods of identifying ticketless travel keeping in mind the evolved technology available in todays times than the archaic assumption of holding a person to be a ticketless traveller unless the ticket is found, particularly in the facts of this case. We are all aware of how present day travel is undertaken without physical tickets, the Railway Authorities and the policy makers would be well advised to reconsider the definition of passenger in explanation (ii), which is perhaps frequently used only for rejecting strict liability claims. Moreover, paragraph 17.4 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) also offers valuable guidance when it says that mere absence of ticket with an injured or deceased will not negative the claim that the person was a bonafide passenger. Moreover, paragraph 17.4 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) also offers valuable guidance when it says that mere absence of ticket with an injured or deceased will not negative the claim that the person was a bonafide passenger. Paragraph 17.4 of the said decision is usefully quoted as under : 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 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) 20. As can be seen that initial burden can be discharged by the claimant by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and the burden will then shift on the Railways. In the case at hand, the son of the deceased viz. Ishwar Sahebrao Salve – AW2 has filed an affidavit (A-121) clearly stating that he purchased the traveling ticket for an amount of Rs.35/- and handed over to his father and then boarded his father in the general compartment of Bhusawal Deolali passenger. This is an affidavit of relevant facts which has not been rebutted by the Railway Administration. Therefore, in my view, mere absence of the ticket cannot negative the claim of the dependents of the deceased Sahebrao Devchand Salve. 21. Infact the entire philosophy behind Section 124-A of the Railways Act, as quoted above, is that the liability to pay compensation is strictly on the Railway Administration for an untoward incident, where a passenger has been deceased or injured except in the five situations which would need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Railway Administration. 21. Infact the entire philosophy behind Section 124-A of the Railways Act, as quoted above, is that the liability to pay compensation is strictly on the Railway Administration for an untoward incident, where a passenger has been deceased or injured except in the five situations which would need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Railway Administration. There is no doubt that there has been an untoward incident in this case, and therefore, the appellants would be entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act. 22. In this view of the matter, this Court sees no merit in the award and judgment of the Tribunal. The same deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer Clause (3), which reads as follows : “(3) Be further pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 29-1-2020, passed by Member (Technical) Hon’ble Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Application No.OA(IIu)/NGP/60/2018.” 23. The appellants would be entitled to a claim of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) as compensation in accordance with the prevailing law. 24. The Railways are directed to pay the appellants in equal proportion a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) to be deposited in their respective savings bank account, subject to verification that the claimants are dependents under Section 123(b) of the Railways Act and of their identity and bank details within a period of six weeks. 25. The appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.