JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (for short, "Tribunal") in case No.OA(IIu)/NGP/249/2017 dtd. 4/6/2019 is under challenge in this appeal by the claimants as the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the claimants. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal can be summarized as follows: On 17/2/2017, the deceased Rushikesh alongwith Rajesh, Gajanan and Prafulla came at Nagpur from Hinganghat. All four of them were proceeding to Pachmarhi for 'Mahadev Yatra'. Rajesh i.e., appellant No.2 purchased railway ticket from Nagpur to Amla and they boarded in Gorakhpur Express from Nagpur Railway station. Due to heavy rush on the platform, the deceased and his friends boarded in different bogies. During the journey, the deceased fell down from the running train at KM No. 1029/3 near Bharatwada Railway Station, however, as the companions of deceased were in a different bogies, they were not aware about the incident. On arriving at Amla Railway Station, the deceased was not found, but other three friends completed the Yatra and returned at Hinganghat. Subsequently, they came to know that deceased was found on a railway track at KM No. 1029/3. As per the contentions of the Claimants, as deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling as a passenger, the Claimants are entitled for the compensation. 4. In response to the notice, the respondent - Railway contested the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It is further contention of Railway that the death of the deceased is not caused in an untoward incident, but the deceased died due to his own negligence, therefore, the Claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation. 5. The learned Tribunal recorded the evidence of the Claimants as well as AW-2 Rajesh Gopal Chandekar vide ExhA-78. In rebuttal, the respondent -Railway examined Shri Atul Kumar Shrivastava, Dy. Station Superintendent (Commercial) vide Exh-A-83. Besides oral evidence, the Claimant placed reliance on Merg Report, Spot Panchnama, Inquest Panchnama, whereas respondent - Railway placed reliance on DRM report Exh-A-30. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal held that Claimants failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and rejected the claim. Station Superintendent (Commercial) vide Exh-A-83. Besides oral evidence, the Claimant placed reliance on Merg Report, Spot Panchnama, Inquest Panchnama, whereas respondent - Railway placed reliance on DRM report Exh-A-30. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal held that Claimants failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and rejected the claim. The Tribunal further held that Claimant No. 2, though younger brother of the deceased, who has attained the age of majority, does not cover under the definition of dependant, and therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, present appeal is preferred on the ground that the Tribunal had not considered the evidence on record and erroneously held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and erroneously rejected the claim. In fact, only burden on the Claimant is to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The Claimant had proved the death of the deceased in an untoward incident by adducing the evidence by way of affidavit which is supported by the Merg Report as well as the Spot Panchnama and Inquest Panchnama. 7. Heard learned Advocate Mrs H. S. Dhande for the appellant. She reiterated the contentions and submitted that the evidence on record shows that the deceased alongwith his brother as well as other friends was travelling in Gorakhpur Express on 17/2/2017. They all were proceeding to Pachmarhi. Due to the heavy rush in the train, they all boarded in a different coach. Therefore, they could not acknowledge the alleged incident. The railway ticket produced on record, verified by the Railway Administration is sufficient to show that deceased was a bona fide passenger. The said railway ticket was verified by the Railway Administration and found to be a genuine one. Thus, the Claimant has proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The dead body of the deceased was found lying at KM No. 1029/3 Bharatwada Railway Station up and down track. The GRP Nagpur attended the place of occurrence and prepared Spot and Inquest Panchnama. The Claimant No. 2 who was travelling with deceased produced the ticket dtd. 17/2/2017. The dead body of the deceased was found lying at KM No. 1029/3 Bharatwada Railway Station up and down track. The GRP Nagpur attended the place of occurrence and prepared Spot and Inquest Panchnama. The Claimant No. 2 who was travelling with deceased produced the ticket dtd. 17/2/2017. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi, reported II (2018) ACC 591 (SC), only burden on Claimant is to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident on the basis of affidavit of evidence by narrating the relevant facts. The absence of ticket with the deceased will not negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. She submitted that sufficient evidence is adduced to show that deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death is caused in an untoward incident. She further placed reliance on Union of India ..V/s.. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 ; Gopal Waman Chandekar ..V/s.. Union of India, reported in 2020 (6) Mh.L.J. 299, Rekha Pradeep Suryawanshi ..V/s.. Union of India, reported at 2020 (1) Mh.L.J. 857 , Kavita and Ors. ..V/s.. Union of India, reported in 2019 ACJ 1036 and Savila Khatun ..V/s.. Union of India, reported in 2019 ACJ 2256 . 8. Per contra, learned Advocate Ms Neerja Chaubey vehemently submitted that there was no eye witness to the said incident. The evidence of AW-2 is not trustworthy hence, liable to be rejected. She further submitted that no ticket was found alongwith the deceased. The Claimants failed to prove that deceased was a bona fide passenger and he sustained injuries in an untoward incident and succumbed to the death. In view of that, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim of the Claimants and no interference is called for. 9. During the pendency of the appeal, the name of the Claimant No. 1 was deleted as she was reported to be dead. The name of Claimant No. 2 is also deleted as he was not a dependant. By way of amendment, the name of grandmother was added as a dependant of the deceased. 10. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the evidence on record, following points arises for my consideration: a) Whether the Claimant Leelabai Waman Chandekar is covered under the definition of dependant ? By way of amendment, the name of grandmother was added as a dependant of the deceased. 10. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the evidence on record, following points arises for my consideration: a) Whether the Claimant Leelabai Waman Chandekar is covered under the definition of dependant ? b) Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim petition of the Claimants ? 11. To substantiate the contention, claimant No.1 Malabai who subsequently was reported to be dead adduced her evidence vide Exh-A-74 and reiterated the contentions as per the pleadings. The sum and substance of her evidence is that deceased was her son. On 17/2/2017, her son Rushikesh alongwith her another son Rajesh was boarded in the Gorakhpur Express. During the journey, he fell down at KM No.1029/3 and succumbed to death. The death of the deceased is caused in an untoward incident. The deceased was a bona fide passenger and hence she is entitled for compensation. Brother of the deceased Rajesh Gopal Chandekar also stepped into the witness box and deposed that he alongwith deceased and other two friends purchased Railway ticket from Nagpur to Amla and boarded in Gorakhpur Express. Due to heavy crowd of passengers, they boarded in different bogies. At Amla Railway Station, they could not find his brother, but they completed the Yatra and returned back. After returning back, he approached Nagpur Railway Police. Police showed him photographs and he identified the deceased as his brother. These both witnesses are tested on the touchstone of cross-examination. Admittedly, both are not the eye witnesses of the incident. But AW-2 has produced the railway ticket. Besides oral evidence, claimants placed reliance on Merg Report which shows that dead body of unknown person was found in railway track at KM No. 1029/3. Police have drawn the Spot Panchnama which also shows that dead body of deceased was found at KM No. 1029/3 near the Bharatwada Railway Station on the track. As per the Inquest Panchnama, deceased had sustained the head injury and injury to the vital organs. 12. To rebut the evidence of claimants, Railway adduced the evidence of Shri. Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Dy. Station Superintendent, who deposed that on 17/2/2017, a Dy. Station Superintendent Bharatwada informed him at 21.30 Hrs that a person's dead body is lying at KM No. 1029/3. 12. To rebut the evidence of claimants, Railway adduced the evidence of Shri. Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Dy. Station Superintendent, who deposed that on 17/2/2017, a Dy. Station Superintendent Bharatwada informed him at 21.30 Hrs that a person's dead body is lying at KM No. 1029/3. He further testified that no untoward incident of accidental falling down of any passenger was either noticed or reported to him by Guard or Loco Pilot of any train or by any other person. There was no message to him even about any jerk or ACP from Guard or Loco Pilot. He admitted that he had not personally witnessed the incident or visited the place of incident. 13. So far as the submission of the learned Advocate Ms Chaubey is concerned that deceased was not a bona fide passenger. AW-2 who was travelling with the deceased has produced the ticket bearing No.42012354 of general bogie which was verified by the Railway Administration and certified that it was issued on 17/2/2017 from Nagpur Railway Station from window No.65 at about 4:24 PM. Said ticket is also produced on record. The evidence of AW-2 Rajesh that they purchased the ticket from Nagpur Railway Station and boarded in the train Gorakhpur express is substantiated by the documentary evidence i.e., the ticket bearing No.42012354. Said ticket was verified and the letter Exh-A-45 show that it was issued from Nagpur Railway Station. Thus, nothing is on record to show that deceased was travelling without ticket. The oral evidence of AW-2 supported by the documentary evidence i.e., the ticket and letter Exh-A-45 sufficiently show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. As far as the issue of bona fide passenger is concerned the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India ..V/s.. Rina Devi (supra), observed that the burden is on the claimant which is to be discharged by the claimant on the basis of affidavit narrating the relevant facts. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that deceased was a bona fide passenger. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Union of India ..V/s.. Rina Devi (supra) by referring the judgment of Delhi High Court in Gurucharan Singh ..V/s.. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200 , held that initial onus to prove death or injury to a bona fide passenger is always on the claimant. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Union of India ..V/s.. Rina Devi (supra) by referring the judgment of Delhi High Court in Gurucharan Singh ..V/s.. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200 , held that initial onus to prove death or injury to a bona fide passenger is always on the claimant. However, such onus can shift on Railways if an affidavit of relevant facts is filed by the claimant. 15. The contentions of the Railway is that, the death of deceased is not caused in an untoward incident. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is necessary to refer the definition of untoward incident defined in Sec. 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as under : "Sec. 123. Definitions.-In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) . . . . . . (b) . . . . . . (c) "untoward incident" means- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.]" 16. Now by considering the definition of an untoward incident, it is to be seen whether the deceased was travelling by the train which was carrying passengers. It is already observed that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The Police papers which are filed on record i.e., Merg Report shows that one person fell down from the train and sustained the injuries. This fact is also supported by the Spot Panchnama. The post mortem report also shows that the deceased has sustained the injuries and his death is caused in an untoward incident. The oral evidence of AW-2 supported by Merg Report, Spot Panchnama and Inquest Panchnama sufficiently show that dead body of the deceased was found at KM No.1029/3 in between up and down line near Bharatwada Railway Station. There is no evidence that either deceased was crossing the track and he was dashed by any train or he attempted to commit suicide. The fact that deceased was travelling by Gorakhpur express proved by the claimant by producing the ticket, his dead body was found at KM No. 1029/3 sufficiently shows that the deceased fell down from the train, when he was travelling and his death was caused. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India ..V/s.. The fact that deceased was travelling by Gorakhpur express proved by the claimant by producing the ticket, his dead body was found at KM No. 1029/3 sufficiently shows that the deceased fell down from the train, when he was travelling and his death was caused. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India ..V/s.. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) held that it is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation. It is further held that the principles of statutory constructions are well settled. 18. It is further held that in our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in Sec. 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 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. 19. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court admittedly evidence on record shows that the deceased was travelling by the train Gorakhpur Express. The injured was found lying in between the track. The Merg Report shows that injured was found lying on track at KM No.1029/3 supported by the Spot and Inquest Panchnama. Merely because there is no eye witness, it is not sufficient to discard the evidence of claimant. The injured was found lying in between the track. The Merg Report shows that injured was found lying on track at KM No.1029/3 supported by the Spot and Inquest Panchnama. Merely because there is no eye witness, it is not sufficient to discard the evidence of claimant. The burden on the claimant to prove that the deceased died in an untoward incident is discharged by the claimant by filing an affidavit of relevant acts. Thereafter the burden will shift on Railway Administration and issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. Admittedly, the Railway Administration has not adduced any contrary evidence to show that deceased either died due to dash by the train or he had committed suicide. 20. The claim was filed by the mother and brother of the deceased. During pendency of appeal, mother died and name of the brother was deleted as he is not the dependant. The name of grandmother of deceased was brought on record as the dependant of the deceased. The definition of dependant given under Sec. 123(b), "dependant means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger namely: "(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, If dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependent on the deceased passenger ; (iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependent on the deceased passenger." 21. In view of the above definition of dependants, the newly added claimant is dependant within the definition of dependant given under Sec. 123 (b)(iv). In view of the above discussion, the claimant has proved that the death of the deceased is occurred in an untoward incident. The Claimant has further proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. In view of above discussion, the claimant grandmother is entitled to receive the compensation in view of the revised Notification dtd. 22/12/2016 which came into effect from 1/1/2017. As the alleged untoward incident took place on 17/2/2017, i.e., after issuance of revised Notification, the claimant is entitled to receive compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of incident. 22. In view of above, appeal deserved to be allowed. 22/12/2016 which came into effect from 1/1/2017. As the alleged untoward incident took place on 17/2/2017, i.e., after issuance of revised Notification, the claimant is entitled to receive compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of incident. 22. In view of above, appeal deserved to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER: i) The First Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dtd. 4/6/2019 passed by the Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Case No.OA(IIu)/NGP/249/2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. iii) The respondent/Railway Administration is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8, 00, 000.00 alongwith interest at the rate pf 6% p.a. from the date of the incident, to the claimants within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 23. With these directions, the first appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.