JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the sole-respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the validity and legality of the judgment dated 23.08.2013, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, in Case No. TAU/RNC/2005/2017, whereby and whereunder the claim was decreed to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-, out of which, Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be paid to Divynashu Gupta, as he is in custody of the applicant Sanjay Kumar Gupta and the rest amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- may be kept in the fixed deposit for five years on monthly interest scheme for taking care of the monthly expenses of the applicant/respondent. 3. The claim application was originally filed by Anjali Gupta, wife of Vijay Kumar Gupta (deceased). Subsequently, by way of amendment petition and in view of the fact that said Anjali Gupta was no longer interest in claim, the said claim was given to her brother-in-law (Sanjay Kumar Gupta) and her son Divyanshu Gupta, as the said Anjali Gupta remarried and her daughter is in her custody and her son Divyanshu Gupta is in the care of Sanjay Kumar Gupta (her elder brother-in-law). It was averred in the claim that deceased Vijay Kumar Gupta, was travelling by Utkal Express (Train No. 8477 UP) on 12.09.2004 from Tata Nagar to Rourkela and he fell down from the running train at Sini Station between PF-2 and Pole No. 276/11A and was cut into two pieces and died at the spot. 4. In view of the above background, the claim petition was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, which was awarded in favour of the sole respondent by the judgment and award dated 23.08.2013, which has been challenged in this appeal by the appellant-Railway. 5. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has not appreciated the entire facts as well as the documents in right direction and the respondent has not been able to prove the case as he was not a bona fide passenger in the train in question. He submits that the burden lies on the claimant to prove the incident and once that is proved, then the onus lies upon the Railway to prove the case. He submits that the burden lies on the claimant to prove the incident and once that is proved, then the onus lies upon the Railway to prove the case. He submits that Section 123 of the Railway Act, 1989 speaks of definition and subsequently Section 124 was amended and Section 124(A) has been inserted, wherein the conditions have been laid down by way of proviso, the compensation has been dealt with and the same shall be payable if passenger dies or suffers injury due to reasons assigned in Section 124 of the said Act. He further submits that the case of the appellant is coming under the proviso of Section 124(A) of the said Act and that’s why, he is not liable for the claim, as awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant to buttress his submission has relied in the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi, reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras- 15, 15.4, 17.1 and 17.2 held as follows:- “15. We now proceed to deal with the following issues seriatim:- (i) Whether the quantum of compensation should be as per the prescribed rate of compensation as on the date of application/incident or on the date of order awarding compensation; (ii) Whether principle of strict liability applies; (iii) Whether presence of a body near the railway track is enough to maintain a claim. (iv) Rate of interest. 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 (supra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) stands explained accordingly. The 4-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon (supra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) stands explained accordingly. The 4-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given. 17.1 Conflict of decisions has been pointed out on the subject. As noticed from the statutory provision, compensation is payable for death or injury of a ‘passenger’. In Raj Kumari (supra) referring to the scheme of Railways Act, 1890, it was observed that since travelling without ticket was punishable, the burden was on the railway administration to prove that passenger was not a bonafide passenger. The Railway Administration has special knowledge whether ticket was issued or not. 1989 Act also has similar provisions being Sections 55 and 137. This view has led to an inference that any person dead or injured found on the railway premises has to be presumed to be a bona fide passenger so as to maintain a claim for compensation. However, Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) 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. A negative onus cannot be placed on the Railways. Onus to prove that the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger can be discharged even in absence of a ticket if relevant facts are shown that ticket was purchased but it was lost. The Delhi High Court observed as follows : “3(ii) In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is totally misconceived. The initial onus in my opinion always lies with the appellants/claimants to show that there is a death due to untoward incident of a bona fide passenger. The Delhi High Court observed as follows : “3(ii) In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is totally misconceived. The initial onus in my opinion always lies with the appellants/claimants to show that there is a death due to untoward incident of a bona fide passenger. Of course, by filing of the affidavit and depending on the facts of a particular case that initial onus can be a light onus which can shift on the Railways, however, it is not the law that even the initial onus of proof which has to be discharged is always on the railways and not on the claimants. 17.2 In Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi (supra) same view was taken by a single Judge of Andhra Pradesh after referring to the provisions of the Evidence Act as follows :- “22. So, from Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that the applicants, having come to the court asserting some facts, must prove that the death of the deceased had taken place in an untoward incident and that the death occurred while the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers as a passenger with valid ticket. Therefore, having asserted that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was having a valid ticket at the time of his death, the initial burden lies on the applicants to establish the same. The initial burden of the applicants never shifts unless the respondent admits the assertions made by the applicants. Such evidence is lacking in this case. Except the oral assertion of A.W.1, no evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the applicants. The court may presume that the evidence which could be, and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. The best evidence rule, which governs the production of evidence in courts, requires that the best evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible should always be produced. Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 enables the court to draw an adverse presumption against a person who can make available to the court, but obstructs the availability of such an evidence. The Claims Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the claim of the applicants and there are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.” 7. The Claims Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the claim of the applicants and there are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.” 7. On the aforesaid grounds, he submits that the award is required to be interfered with by this Court, as he was not the bona fide passenger and he has not proved his case and also the learned Tribunal without considering the documents has passed the said award. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent submits that the learned Tribunal has taken care of the documents as well as the evidences adduced before the Tribunal and after discussing the materials available on record, has passed the award. He submits that A.W.-2 Sanjay Kumar Gupta, in his affidavit has stated that he had gone to the station to see off his brother Vijay Kumar Gupta (the deceased) and also purchased the ticket. He further submits that thee witnesses have been examined and Exhibit-A/4 is the fardbeyan of Mahendra Gupta. He further submits that Exhibits-A/5 and A/6 are the police final report and inquest report respectively. He further submits that the said Exhibits clearly suggests that the deceased Vijay Kumar Gupta died due to falling from the train and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim. He further submits that the DRM report is at R/1 to R/3, which also suggests that the accident took place due to fall from the train. He further submits that the Tribunal has clearly held that the deceased Sanjay Kumar Gupta certainly died due to his fall from the train and after looking into all the documents has made the award. He lastly submits that in the same judgment, as relied by learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi, reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras- 16.6 and 17.4 held as follows:- “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’. 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’. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil Kumar 2017 (13) SCALE 652 laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor. 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.” 9. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent submits that there is no illegality in the impugned award. 10. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials available on record and has minutely examined the award dated 23.08.2013. 11. The only issue required to be answered as to whether the deceased in fact fell from a train or not and whether he is entitled for the compensation in the light of Section 124(A) of the Railway Act, 1989 or not? 12. Admittedly, A.W.-2 Sanjay Kumar Gupta, in his affidavit has stated that he had gone to the station to see off his brother Vijay Kumar Gupta (the deceased) and also purchased the ticket, which has not been denied by the Railway. 12. Admittedly, A.W.-2 Sanjay Kumar Gupta, in his affidavit has stated that he had gone to the station to see off his brother Vijay Kumar Gupta (the deceased) and also purchased the ticket, which has not been denied by the Railway. The Exhibits-A/5 and A/6 are the police final report and inquest report respectively, which also speaks that the deceased died due to falling from the train. The DRM report is at R/1 to R/3, which also suggests that the accident took place due to fall from the train. Thus, it is crystal clear that the death occurred due to accident and because of fall from the Train. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 held that since the provision for compensation in the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. 14. Sub-Section 29 of Section 2 of the Act defines “passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123 (C) of the Act defines “untoward incident to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A of the Act states as under:- “124A. 14. Sub-Section 29 of Section 2 of the Act defines “passenger” to mean a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123 (C) of the Act defines “untoward incident to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A of the Act states as under:- “124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.- 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." 15. It is apparent that accident, in which, the deceased Vijay Kumar Gupta died is clearly not covered by the proviso to Section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124-A. This is very much clear that the case in hand is covered by the main body of Section 124-A of the Act. Thus, it is crystal clear that Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Thus, it is crystal clear that Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. If a case falls in main body of Section, it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jameela Versus Union of India, reported in 2010(12) SCC 443 at para 12, held as under:- “12. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railways, that the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the Railways itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian Trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124-A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the Railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.” 17. Considering the balance of probabilities, as per which, civil cases have to be decided, the deceased, in fact quite clearly had died on account of a fall from a train in view of the documents of the respondents being Exhibits- A/5 and A/6. 18. Credence is very much there of the factum of death on account of fall from a train, because the place of death is neither near the residence nor the work place of the deceased for the accident to be of any form of criminal negligence/self inflicted injury of wrongly standing on the railway tracks or crossing of the railway tracks. 19. In light of the above discussions, this Court finds that the finding of the learned Tribunal is, therefore, not vitiated. There is no illegality in the quantum of compensation, granted by the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed in terms of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rule 1990. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed. 20. 19. In light of the above discussions, this Court finds that the finding of the learned Tribunal is, therefore, not vitiated. There is no illegality in the quantum of compensation, granted by the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed in terms of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rule 1990. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed. 20. Since the Tribunal has already held that if the awarded amount is not paid by the Railway within two months from the date of pronouncement of the decree, it will carry an interest @ 9% from the date of judgment, till the date of actual payment is made. As such, there is no need of passing any order with regard to interest, as the same has been taken care of by the learned Tribunal.