JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Akash Deep, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent/Union of India. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU) RNC/2012/0053 in an application under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which has been rejected by the said learned Tribunal. 3. Mrs. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the deceased namely, Laxman Saw on 09.07.2012 after purchasing a valid 2nd class ordinary ticket bearing No. 044264412-ex-Baidyanath Dham to Gaya reached Jhajha by train. He then boarded from Jhajha Train No. 5233 UP Kolkata-Darbhanga Express for going to Kiul from where he was to board another train for going to Gaya Jn. There was a rush in the compartment and when the train was approaching Kiul Jn. he reached near the gate of the compartment to get down. However, due to jostling amongst the passenger he fell down from the moving train at Kiul Jn. and sustained serious injuries and died during treatment at Railway Hospital, Kiul. She submits that the claim application was filed before the learned Tribunal. She submits that the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the claimant vide the judgment dated 18.03.2015 and aggrieved with that, the present appeal has been filed. She further submits that a U/D case No. 29 of 2012 dated 10.07.2012 was registered by Railway police at Kiul in which final form has been submitted wherein at conclusion part it was stated that the death has occurred due to accident on account of accidental fall from the said train. In the said final form it has also been reported that the police has also mentioned about recovery of ticket from the body of the deceased. She further submits that this occurred due to jostling of passengers and there was lot of rush due to Bol-Bam Yatra. She further submits that the learned Tribunal has framed the issue as to whether any “untoward incident” as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to him while travelling by Train No. 5233 UP Kolkata-Darbhanga Express on 09.07.2012 from Baidyanath Dham to Gaya Jn. or not? She further submits that the learned Tribunal has framed the issue as to whether any “untoward incident” as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to him while travelling by Train No. 5233 UP Kolkata-Darbhanga Express on 09.07.2012 from Baidyanath Dham to Gaya Jn. or not? She submits that while deciding this issue, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the injury caused due to own fault of the deceased. She further submits that however, the finding with regard to the bona fide passenger is in favour of the deceased and inspite of that, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the claimant. According to her, the learned Tribunal has wrongly framed the issue with regard to section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. She further submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered under section 124-A of the Act itself. According to her, only exception mentioned in proviso to section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 clauses (a) to (e) the case will not come under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. On these ground, she submits that the judgment of the learned Tribunal is fit to be interfered with as a bonafide passenger death has occurred. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Akash Deep, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Railways submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts as well as the witnesses and the relevant documents and thereafter it has passed the order. He submits that when the train was not being stopped at Kiul station and he was tried to get down there and in that view of the matter the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the injury which has been received by the deceased due to his own act. On this ground, he submits that there is no illegality in the judgment of the learned Tribunal. 5. In view of the submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the judgment of the learned Tribunal as well as the L.C.R. which has been received pursuant to the previous order of the Court and the Court finds that the learned Tribunal has framed the Issue no. 5. In view of the submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the judgment of the learned Tribunal as well as the L.C.R. which has been received pursuant to the previous order of the Court and the Court finds that the learned Tribunal has framed the Issue no. 1 with regard to bonafide passenger and that issue has been answered in favour of the claimant and the learned Tribunal has held that the deceased namely Laxman Saw was a bonafide passenger. The learned Tribunal has also framed the issue as to whether any untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 is made out or not? and considering that issue, the learned Tribunal after discussing the exhibits has held that at Kiul station there was no stoppage of Train No. 5233 UP Kolkata-Darbhanga Express and the deceased was trying to get down there and that is why due to his negligence the occurrence took place. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was travelling in the said train by way of purchasing the valid ticket and the learned Tribunal has also held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question on which he was travelling. The final form submitted by the police after investigation wherein it has been clearly stated that the death occurred due to accidental fall from the said train. 6. How the trains are over-crowded when such festivals are there, is well-known. In a country where 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 it will amount to deprive a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Thus, when travelling in the train is admitted and said occurrence has taken place which has been found to be genuine and in view of the final form wherein it has been disclosed that due to accidental fall this has been occurred, then the case of the deceased will come under main section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Thus, when travelling in the train is admitted and said occurrence has taken place which has been found to be genuine and in view of the final form wherein it has been disclosed that due to accidental fall this has been occurred, then the case of the deceased will come under main section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The deceased was standing at the open door of the compartment of the running train and falling to his death, it will amount to accident and it cannot be said to be that it was a case of suicide or it is not a self-inflicted injury, neither due to his own criminal act nor he was in a state of intoxication or insanity nor due to any natural cause or disease and, moreover, the Railway has also failed to prove that the deceased fell from the running train and death has occurred due to his own negligence. Thus, it can be safely said that his falling down from the train was accidental and the said accident not falling under the exception of section 124-A of the proviso and identical was the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Jameela v. Union of India”, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 443 , wherein it has been held in paragraph no. 10 and 11 of the said judgment as under: “10. It is not denied by the Railways that M. Hafeez fell down from the train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a “passenger” for the purpose of Section 124-A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under Section 124-A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. But the proviso to the section says that the Railway Administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e)” 7. When the case of the deceased is not coming within the enumerated reasons under clauses (a) to (e) of section 124-A of the Act, the case of the deceased is coming within the main section of section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, claimant is entitled for compensation. When the case of the deceased is not coming within the enumerated reasons under clauses (a) to (e) of section 124-A of the Act, the case of the deceased is coming within the main section of section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, claimant is entitled for compensation. In that view of the matter, the Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to compensation under section 124-A of the said Act. In the case of “Union of India v. Rina Devi”, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 , the Railways Act, 1989 has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case and what will be the amount of compensation and interest under the said Act was also considered and it was held at paragraph nos. 19 and 30 of the said judgment, which are quoted below: “19. 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 [Rathi Menon v. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714 , para 30 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1311] and Kalandi Charan Sahoo [Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. South-East Central Railways, (2019) 12 SCC 387 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1638] stands explained accordingly. The four-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo [Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52] 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. 30. 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. 30. As already observed, though this Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi [Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India, (2009) 7 SCC 372 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 133 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 408 : 2010 TAC 420] held that rate of interest has to be @ 6% from the date of application till the date of the award and 9% thereafter and 9% rate of interest was awarded from the date of application in Mohamadi [Mohamadi v. Union of India, (2019) 12 SCC 389 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC 19], rate of interest has to be reasonable rate on a par with accident claim cases. We are of the view that in absence of any specific statutory provision, interest can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railways arises up to the date of payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal position in this regard is on a par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in this manner.” 8. In view of the above facts, it is evident that the appeal deserves to be succeeded for the reasons that the appellant has successfully proved the entitlement of compensation under the provision of the said Act due to death occurred in an ‘untoward accident’ and the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 8 lacs as per the rules, and in view of Rule 3 Chapter II of Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rule, 1990. 9. Accordingly, M.A. No. 275 of 2015 is allowed and the judgment dated 18.03.2015 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU) RNC/2012/0053 is set aside. 10. It is held that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 8 lacs in view of paragraph no. 19 of the judgment rendered in the case of “Union of India v. Rina Devi” (supra). No order as to cost. 11. M.A. No. 275 of 2015 is allowed in the above terms. 12. 10. It is held that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 8 lacs in view of paragraph no. 19 of the judgment rendered in the case of “Union of India v. Rina Devi” (supra). No order as to cost. 11. M.A. No. 275 of 2015 is allowed in the above terms. 12. Let the L.C.R. be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith.