JUDGMENT anuja Prabhudessai, J. - Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper. 2] The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act') assailing the judgment dated 12/09/2008 in Claim application No. 94/Oa-II/RCT/NGP/2007. By the impugned judgment and order, the Railway Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- to the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claimant') on account of the injuries sustained in an untoward incident. 3] Heard Shri Lambat, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri Deshpande, learned advocate for the Claimant. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 4] The Claimant had filed a claim application under Section 16 of the said act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in an untoward incident. It is the case of the Claimant that during the intervening night of 08/04/2007 and 09/04/2007, she along with her husband had boarded adilabad-Nanded passenger train on their journey from adilabad to Jalgaon Deccan on purchase of second class ticket. The husband of the Claimant had got down from the train at Khadki Bazar Railway Station. While the Claimant was about to de-board, the train moved with a violent jerk as a result the Claimant lost her balance and fell down from the slow moving train. The wheels of the train ran over her leg. She sustained injuries which resulted in amputation of right leg below the knee level. The Claimant claimed that she was a bona fide passenger and that she had sustained the said injuries in an untoward incident and hence, filed a claim application for compensation. 5] The appellant claimed that the injury was self inflicted injury and the said incident is not covered within the purview of Section 123(c) but falls within the proviso (a) to Section 124 of the said act and hence, it was not liable to pay any compensation. 6] The Tribunal, upon considering the evidence adduced by the respective parties, held that the Claimant was a bona fide passenger and that she had sustained injuries in an untoward incident. The Tribunal therefore allowed the application and awarded compensation as stated above. This judgment and order is challenged in this appeal. 6] The Tribunal, upon considering the evidence adduced by the respective parties, held that the Claimant was a bona fide passenger and that she had sustained injuries in an untoward incident. The Tribunal therefore allowed the application and awarded compensation as stated above. This judgment and order is challenged in this appeal. 7] The evidence on record clearly indicates that the Claimant was proceeding to Jalgaon by adilabad-Nanded passenger train. The Claimant had produced journey ticket, the validity of which was not disputed by the appellant. The memo issued by the Station Master also stated that as per the memo of Guard No. 552, one lady passenger was injured and shifted to the hospital. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal has held that the Claimant was a bona fide passenger. The finding of the Tribunal is based on the evidence on record and does not warrant any interference. 8] The evidence of the Claimant amply proves that she had fallen from the train while she was trying to de-board the train at Khadki Bazar Railway Station. It would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rinadevi reported in (2018) aIR 2623, wherein it has been held that the injuries sustained by a passenger while boarding or de-boarding the train cannot be considered as self inflicted injury unless the facts and circumstances show that his/her act was totally imprudent, irrational, callous and unmindful of the consequences. In the instant case, no such evidence is brought on record and hence the injuries sustained by the Claimant cannot be construed as self inflicted injury as to absolve the appellant of its liability to pay the compensation. 9] The evidence adduced by the Claimant particularly the discharge card issued by the Government Medical College and Shri Guru Gobindsinghji Memorial Hospital, Nanded indicates that the Claimant had sustained crush injury of right leg with traumatic amputation (Rt) prox Leg. The medical certificate of the said hospital also shows that the extent of disability was 40%. The Tribunal has therefore observed that the Claimant is entitled for compensation in terms of Item No. 19 (for amputation below middle thigh to 3 below knee) of Part-III of the Schedule to Rule 3 of the Railway accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) amendment Rules, 1997. The Tribunal has therefore observed that the Claimant is entitled for compensation in terms of Item No. 19 (for amputation below middle thigh to 3 below knee) of Part-III of the Schedule to Rule 3 of the Railway accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) amendment Rules, 1997. The fact that the Claimant is entitled for compensation in terms of Item No. 19 of the Schedule is not in dispute. as on the date of the judgment and award, the Claimant was entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/-. Hence, the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10] Learned advocate for the appellant states that the appellant has deposited the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- along with accrued interest thereon as per the impugned judgment. Order dated 28/06/2010 indicates that the Claimant was permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the balance amount was ordered to be invested in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. 11] It is not in dispute that in view of the amendment to the Schedule with effect from 01/01/2017, the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,80,000/-. The amount payable under the amended schedule is higher than the amount payable prior to 01/01/2017. Hence, being a beneficial legislation, the Claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/- as per Item No. 19 of the Schedule of the Railway accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016 as amended from 01/01/2017. 12] Under the circumstances and in view of the discussions supra, the following order is passed:- (a) The appeal is dismissed. (b) The Claimant is held to be entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- in addition to compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- already deposited by the appellant. (c) The Claimant shall furnish the account details to the appellant within two weeks from the date of this judgment. (d) The appellant to deposit the balance amount in the account of the Claimant within three weeks thereafter, after adjusting Rs.97,999/- being the interest accrued on the initial deposit. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.