ORDER : SRI JUSTICE ANANDA SEN By filing this miscellaneous appeal, the claimant-appellant has challenged the order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2013/0021 (Checklist No.2902130014) whereby the claim application filed by the claimant-appellant under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been dismissed. 2. Deceased Sanjay Rana died in an untoward incident as he fell from running passenger train. Claimant is the father. The deceased left behind his father (claimant), mother, young widow (aged about 25 years) and two minor children (a daughter aged about 3 years and a son aged about 8 years). 3. The deceased, Sanjay Rana, was son of claimant-appellant. On 27/28.08.2012, the deceased, after purchasing second class train ticket for Baidhyanath Dham to Shankarpur, boarded Train No.63564 DN Jasidih – Asansole Passenger. There was heavy rush in the train. The deceased was standing inside the compartment near its gate. Due to heavy rush the passengers were jostling with each other and because of intense jostling of passengers and heavy rush in the train, the deceased Sanjay Rana could not maintain his grip and fell down from the running train between Mathurapur and Shankarpur Station Near Km 313/10-08 and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. On receiving information about the incident, family members of the deceased came and identified the body of the deceased and father of the deceased, who is claimant-appellant, gave a written application to Rail Police Station Jasidih on 28.07.2012. On the basis of his statement an unnatural death case being U.D. Case No.18 of 2012 was registered with Jasidih Government Railway Police Station on 28.07.2012. A claim application was filed by the claimant-appellant, seeking compensation for the death of his son in untoward incident under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Compensation claimed was for himself of Rs.4,00,000/-along with interest pendente lite and future till realization at the rate of 12% per annum. 4. Respondents appeared and filed their written statement, making formal, evasive and ornamental objections. Later the DRM’s report based on the enquiry done under the Railways Passengers (Manners of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 was filed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal had framed three issues, which are as follows:- 1. Whether Sanjay Rana was a bonafide passenger as alleged? 2. Later the DRM’s report based on the enquiry done under the Railways Passengers (Manners of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 was filed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal had framed three issues, which are as follows:- 1. Whether Sanjay Rana was a bonafide passenger as alleged? 2. Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to him while travelling by Jasidih-Asansol Passenger Train No.6354 from Baidyanath Dham to Shankarpur Station on 28.7.2012? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any? 6. In support of his claim, the applicant had examined himself as AW 1 and had furnished the following documents, which were marked exhibits: 1. Fardbayan of Sri Mahadev Rana Ext.A1 2. Inquest Report Ext. A2 3. FIR Ext. A3 4. P.M. Report in two sheets Ext. A4 and 5. Final Report in two sheets Ext. A5 7. The respondent did not examine any witness, but furnished the following documents which were marked as exhibits : 1. DRM’s Report Ext. R1 2. Enquiry Report dated 30.10.2013 of ASI/RPF/MDP Ext.R2 3. Form 1 Report of Untoward Incident Ext. R3 4. Form 2 Brief Particulars of Untoward Indicdent Ext.R4 5. Report dated 25.03.2013 of CI/Accdt. Ext. R5 and 6. Memo dated 28.02.2012 of SM/Jasidih to OC/GRP/ JSME Ext. R6 8. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents on record, dismissed the application holding that the deceased Sanjay Rana was not a bonafide passenger at the relevant time of the incident and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994. 9. Challenging the said order, claimant-appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal. 10. The Tribunal while dismissing the claim application of the claimant-appellant has taken into consideration the application filed by the claimant-appellant, the documents on record, evidence on affidavit of the claimant and all aspects relevant for adjudication of the claim application. The Tribunal has discussed the contradictions in the evidence on affidavit of the claimant in the context of the averments made in the claim application. The Tribunal has discussed the contradictions in the evidence on affidavit of the claimant in the context of the averments made in the claim application. The claimant has failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger inasmuch as while in the claim application the claimant had averred that the deceased was travelling from Baidyanath Dham to Shankarpur at the time of the incident, in the evidence on affidavit the claimant has stated that the deceased was travelling from Shankarpur to Baidyanath Dham. The claimant also tried to improve his case by stating in the evidence on affidavit that the journey ticket was lost in the alleged incident. The claimant also tried to improve his case later on and sought for amendment in the claim application seeking to amend the statements in the claim application for incorporating “On 27.07.2012 after purchasing and having a valid ordinary ticket” in place of “On 28.07.2012 after purchasing and having a valid ordinary ticket bearing No.54219” in the 1st line of para 6 of the claim application; AND “the deceased was travelling with a valid ordinary ticket for Baidyanath Dham (Deoghar) to Shankarpur Station, which has lost during the aforesaid untoward incident” in place of “the deceased was travelling with a valid ordinary ticket bearing No.54219 for Baidyanath Dham (Deoghar) to Shankarpur Station, which was found in the possession of the deceased” in para 7 of claim application. The amendment sought by the claimant-appellant was not allowed as the same could have changed the entire nature of the case and was an afterthought to cover up the infirmities and were certainly not typographical mistakes as was being claimed by the claimant-appellant. 11. The Tribunal had come to a finding that the deceased-victim was not travelling with the authority of the valid ticket at the time of the alleged incident and thus, the nature of the incident becomes irrelevant in view of the fact that Sanjay Rana was not a bonafide passenger at the relevant time of the incident. Thus, the Tribunal held that the claimant is not entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994 and, accordingly, dismissed the claim application. 12. Thus, the Tribunal held that the claimant is not entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994 and, accordingly, dismissed the claim application. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant, to show that the findings arrived by the Tribunal were wrong and erroneous, has submitted that the ticket was found on the body of the deceased, which was purchased by the deceased from Shankarpur to Baidyanathdham on 27.07.2012, which has also been stated in the Fardbayan and the same also finds mention in the Final Report submitted by the police. She submits that the claimant-appellant had rightly sought for amendment in the claim application once he found that there were mistakes in it, but unfortunately, the amendment application was dismissed. He submitted that once the railway ticket was found from the person of the deceased and in the final report submitted by the police, the same fact is mentioned, then the Tribunal should have granted the relief to the claimants, rather than dismissing the case on a hyper-technical ground of improper pleadings. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Railways submitted that the claimant has failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Even the claimants wanted to change their pleadings in the main application by filing amendment application, which was dismissed. As per the counsel for the Railways, initially case was that the deceased was going from Baidyanathdham to Shankarpur, but the ticket, which the claimants are harping upon is from Shankarpur to Baidyanathdham. Aforesaid fact was tried to be corrected in the amendment application, but since the same was dismissed, it has to be considered that the deceased was travelling from Baidyanathdham to Shankarpur without any ticket. Thus, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Further the counsel for the Railways submitted that the body was recovered beyond Shankarpur, thus, any way the claimants’ claim that there was valid ticket from Baidyanathdham to Shankarpur cannot be accepted as the deceased travelled beyond Shankarpur as his dead body was found from a place beyond Shankarpur. 14. In the light of submissions of the parties, I have gone through the records of the case. From the evidence led, I find that the dead body was found at a place, which was beyond Shankarpur. 14. In the light of submissions of the parties, I have gone through the records of the case. From the evidence led, I find that the dead body was found at a place, which was beyond Shankarpur. The claimants had justified that the deceased was returning from Baidyanathdham to Shankarpur, but due to heavy rush, he could not get down at Shankarpur and due to jostling, he fell down between Shankarpur and Mathurapur. The claimants claim that the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket bearing No.54219 dated 27.07.2012. Though in the fardbayan, the claimants mentioned that the ticket was from Shankarpur to Baidyanathdham, but, in fact the said ticket was from Baidyanathdham to Shankarpur. Even if we ignore the journey places for the time being, it has to be seen whether actually the deceased was travelling with ticket or not. Though in the First Information Report, the claim is that the ticket was found and recovered from the pocket of the deceased, but in the inquest report, there is no whisper of recovery of any railway ticket. In the final report of UD Case No.18 of 2012, it was mentioned that one ticket bearing No.54219 was recovered. Thus, I am of the opinion that the deceased boarded the train with a valid ticket. 15. Now the question is whether the deceased can be said to be bonafide passenger when his body was found beyond the destination for which the ticket was purchased. Admittedly, the ticket was up to Shankarpur, but the dead body was found beyond Shankarpur. Since I have held that the deceased was travelling with a ticket, which was up to Shankarpur, there is no doubt that he was a bonafide passenger. An explanation was given as there was heavy rush, the deceased could not get down at Shankarpur. He reached near the gates of the coach and because of jostling, he fell down. Thus, at best it can be said that the deceased travelled beyond his scheduled destination and fell down thereafter. 16. Section 138 of the Railway Act provides for levy of excess charge and fare for travelling without proper pass or ticket or beyond authorized distance. The said provision provides that if any person travels in a train in contravention of the provisions of Section 55, he shall be liable to pay on demand the excess charge. 16. Section 138 of the Railway Act provides for levy of excess charge and fare for travelling without proper pass or ticket or beyond authorized distance. The said provision provides that if any person travels in a train in contravention of the provisions of Section 55, he shall be liable to pay on demand the excess charge. Section 55(2) also provides that a person can travel beyond the destination after obtaining a permission from the railways on condition that he subsequently will pay the fare payable for the distance to be travelled. Thus, this provision clearly suggests that the deceased cannot be said to be an unauthorized traveler, rather he was a bonafide passenger, who could not get down at his scheduled destination. 17. Section 124-A of the Railways Act provides for compensation on account of untoward incidents. Section 124-A of the Railways Act reads as follows:- 124-A. 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 purposes 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. 18. Explanation. – For the purposes 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. 18. From the explanation to the aforesaid provision, it emanates that a ‘passenger’ would include a person, who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers. In this case, I have already held that the deceased was holding a valid ticket though up to Shankarpur, but as his dead body was recovered from a place beyond Shankarpur, a proper explanation has been given, thus, the deceased will come within the definition of ‘passenger’. 19. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident”, which reads as follows: 123. Definitions. – In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires.- (a) … (b) … (c) “untoward incident” means-(1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987; or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 20. By virtue of Clause (2) of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, accidental falling from a train carrying passenger is an “untoward incident”. In this case, there is no doubt that the deceased fell down from the train accidentally. Even in cross examination the question put by the Railways also suggest that the deceased accidentally fell down from the train. The incident, thus, comes within the purview of “untoward incident” for the purpose of claiming compensation. 21. Now the question is what would be the act of amendment application, which was dismissed. Even in cross examination the question put by the Railways also suggest that the deceased accidentally fell down from the train. The incident, thus, comes within the purview of “untoward incident” for the purpose of claiming compensation. 21. Now the question is what would be the act of amendment application, which was dismissed. Initially it was the case of the claimants that the deceased was going from Shankarpur to Baidyanathdham and met with an accident and a ticket was found, but, in fact they later on tried to amend their application to suggest that the deceased was going from Baidyanathdham to Shankarpur, but as he could not get down at Shankarpur and the train at Shankarpur was carried over, in between he fell from train and died. Admittedly, the amendment application was dismissed, which was not challenged, but the fact remains that the deceased died in a Railway Accident and he was a bonafide passenger. This is a beneficial legislation. In my opinion the Court should not be kept in the concave of strict pleadings. A father has filed the initial application, who has lost his young son, who left behind a young widow of 25 years and two children, son aged about 8 years and daughter aged about 3 years. It is not possible for him to write all the detail facts in the pleadings. When the evidence had come that the deceased was travelling in a train with a ticket, all this nuances of the pleadings, i.e., from where he was travelling, whether he was travelling from Baidyanathdham to Shankarpur or from Shankarpur to Baidyanathdham has got no relevance for the purpose of compensation. 22. In view of what has been held above, I am inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, I hereby set aside the impugned order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2013/0021 (Checklist No.2902130014), and direct the Railways to pay the due amount of compensation, legally payable to the claimants, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount should be disbursed as per the Hindu Succession Act. 23. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 24. Let the Lower Court Records be transmitted to the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment.