JUDGMENT : 1. By preferring this appeal appellant -General Manager, Central Railway, CST, Mumbai has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, in Claim Application No.56/OA-II/RCT/NGP/2006, dated 24.7.2009 Nagpur Bench Nagpur, whereby the claim of compensation was allowed by granting compensation at the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Present appellant is the original respondent preferred this appeal on the ground that the lady was running from bridge in order to catch the train in spite of instructions, she tried to board into the train and as a result came under the wheels. Thus, the deceased while attempting to catch the train felled down, sustained injuries and succumbed to the death. It is the contention of the appellant that it is not an untoward incident, but it is a self inflicted injury due to the negligence of the deceased and, therefore, railway is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents. However, learned trial Court has not considered the same and wrongly awarded the compensation. 2. Whereas, as per the contention of the respondents said accident took place when deceased was boarding in the train and succumbed to the death, she accidentally felled down and, therefore, Railway is liable to pay compensation. 3. Taking into consideration the rival contentions parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing both the sides learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the deceased Deeplaxmi was the bona fide passenger of the train at the relevant day. The Tribunal had also come to the conclusion that the alleged incident covered under the untoward incident and, therefore, Railway is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has considered that the passenger is trying to enter into the train and as a result felled down, sustained injuries which is an untoward incident under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. 4. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Neerja Choubey appearing for the appellant and also heard learned Advocate Mr. P.S. Mirache, for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 5. It has been vehemently argued by the learned Advocate Ms. Neerja Choubey that the deceased Deeplaxmi was not having ticket for boarding the train, therefore, she was not the bona fide passenger. In fact, she was attempting to catch the train in spite of repeated instructions to her not to catch the train. 5. It has been vehemently argued by the learned Advocate Ms. Neerja Choubey that the deceased Deeplaxmi was not having ticket for boarding the train, therefore, she was not the bona fide passenger. In fact, she was attempting to catch the train in spite of repeated instructions to her not to catch the train. The incident took place due to her negligence and it is self inflicted injury, therefore, Railway is not liable to pay compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned Mr. P.S. Mirache submitted that merely because ticket was not found from the dead body, it cannot be said that she was travelling without ticket. The possibility that ticket may have been lost during the course of untoward incident cannot be ruled out and, therefore, presumption needs to be drawn that the deceased was bona fide passenger. He further submitted that the issue regarding self inflicted injury and interpretation regarding the untoward incident is interpreted by the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The intent of the person behind self inflicted injury is to be proved as self inflicted injury require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence on any particular degree. In support of the contention he placed reliance on Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 , wherein it is held that a passenger trying to board a moving train, fell down and died, Railway Authority liable to pay compensation even if there was no fault on the part of the Railways. He further placed his reliance in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, reported in 2018 (3) TAC 26 , wherein it is held that the self inflicted injury require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Lastly, he placed reliance on reported in Dalit and others Vs. Union of India, through General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, reported in 2019 (6) BCR 444, wherein it is held that merely because the ticket was not found on the dead body of deceased, will not infer that she had no ticket. 7. After hearing rival parties following points arise for my determination and I answer the same as follows : (i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the date of the incident ? 7. After hearing rival parties following points arise for my determination and I answer the same as follows : (i) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the date of the incident ? (ii) Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident in view of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act ? (iii) Whether the award passed by the Railway Tribunal calls for any interference ? 8. The legal heirs of the respondents filed an application for grant of compensation on the contention that on 12.2.2006 the deceased, namely, Deeplaxmi Shriram Bandhe was travelling by Amravati Nagpur passenger from Wardha towards Nagpur as a passenger. She had purchased ordinary ticket. On the unfortunate date when she was trying to catch the train, she felled down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the death. Due to the said accidental death the Merg was registered by the Railway Police at Wardha. Accordingly, during the investigation inquest panchanama had carried out. The deceased was aged about 50 years and the applicants were totally depending upon the deceased. As she died in the accident while catching the train, all the applicants are entitled for compensation. The said claim is resisted by the Railway on the ground that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased herself and Railway is not responsible for the said accident. Another contention of the appellant Railway is that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and, therefore, she is not entitled for the compensation. 9. In support of the contention applicant No.1 Shriram Zolbaji Bandhe stepped into the witness box and testified about the alleged incident. He reiterated the contentions as pleaded in the application. He is cross-examined at length and during the cross-examination it is elicited that on 12.2.2006 he had been to Wardha Railway Station Platform at about 6.30 p.m. to catch the train. He purchased the train ticket for his wife. He was also accompanying his wife. Train was already arrived, he attempted to board in the train which was about to start. However, while his wife was boarding in the train she felled down and sustained injury and succumbed to the death. This cross-examination also shows that when deceased was attempting to board in the train, she felled down and sustained the injuries. 10. Train was already arrived, he attempted to board in the train which was about to start. However, while his wife was boarding in the train she felled down and sustained injury and succumbed to the death. This cross-examination also shows that when deceased was attempting to board in the train, she felled down and sustained the injuries. 10. To rebut the contention of the claimants on behalf of Railways one Shri Dhirajsingh Rajaramsingh Thakur was examined by the Railways. He testified that on 12.2.2006 he had given the right signal. Thereafter, the driver had blown the horn and after exchanging the signal by driver, guard and by him the train was started, at that time all the passengers who were travelling by the train have boarded into the compartment of the train. The train arrived on Platform No.1 of Wardha Railway Station. When the Railway departed from Wardha Railway Station two bogies yet to pass one lady was running from the bridge in order to catch the train. He and other passengers have shouted not to catch the train, but she ignored the same and tried to catch the train and accident took place. Admittedly, this witness is not cross-examined and the evidence of this witness remained unchallenged. The Railway has examined another witness Nemsingh Dinesh. His evidence also shows that on the day of incident he had given the whistle in order to alert the passengers to board into the train and given signal to the driver to start the train. The Deputy Station Master and passengers were instructed the deceased not to board in the train, but she attempted to board in the train felled down, sustained injuries and succumbed to the death. The evidence of this witness is also remained unchallenged. 11. On the basis of this evidence leaned Advocate Ms. Neeraja Choubey submitted that this evidence is sufficient to infer that it is the deceased because of whose negligence the accident took place. It is an admitted position that the accident took place when the deceased was trying to catch the train. As per the submission of learned Advocate Ms. Neerja Choubey it does not cover under 123(c) of the Railways Act. It does not cover under the definition of untoward incident but it is a self inflicted injury and, therefore, Railway is not liable to pay compensation. 12. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. As per the submission of learned Advocate Ms. Neerja Choubey it does not cover under 123(c) of the Railways Act. It does not cover under the definition of untoward incident but it is a self inflicted injury and, therefore, Railway is not liable to pay compensation. 12. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. P.S. Mirache, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, wherein it is held that a passenger trying to board in a moving train, fell down and died, Railway Authority liable to pay compensation even if there was no fault on the part of the Railways. Hon’ble Apex Court had considered various judgments and also discussed that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute which 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court had also considered the judgment of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, reported in 1866 LRI Ex 265, wherein the fact created a new legal principle, though professing to be based on analogies drawn from existing law. Hon’ble Apex Court has held that ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents by adopting a restrictive meaning to it. It is a 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 from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass in 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. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression. In another judgment Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, reported in 2018 (3) TAC 26 the Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the aspect of untoward incident, and the aspect of self negligence or self inflicted injury and observed that whether attempt of getting into or getting down a moving train resulting in an accident was a case of ‘self inflicted injury’ so as not to entitle to any compensation or no such concept could not apply under the scheme of law which casts strict liability to pay compensation by the Railway under Section 123 and 124A. Hon’ble Apex Court has considered various case laws and interpreted Section 123 and Section 124A and held that the victim received injuries in the course of entering a train which started moving. Question was whether his claim that he had suffered injuries in an ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 123(c) could be upheld or whether he was covered by proviso to Section 124A clause (b). Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the judgment of Joseph PT Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2014 Kerala (12), wherein the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ was discussed by the High Court. The another judgment Pushpa Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) III ACC 799 (Bom), wherein a hawker died in the course of boarding a train was also discussed and held that we are unable to uphold the above view as a 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 evoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. Thus, Hon’ble Apex Court had interpreted the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ and held that mere negligence of any particular degree is not sufficient to infer that it was a self inflicted injury. Thus, the contention of the appellant that it was the deceased who was negligent and, therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation is not sustainable in the light of various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus, the contention of the appellant that it was the deceased who was negligent and, therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation is not sustainable in the light of various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passenger include accident when a bona fide passenger travelling tries to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process covered under ‘untoward incident’. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that applicants are not entitled for the compensation as she was not travelling in the train but due to the negligence of deceased the alleged accident has taken place is not sustainable. 13. The another contention raised by the Railway is that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was found along with her and, therefore, she is not a bona fide passenger. The Hon’ble Apex Court has explained application of principle of strict liability and held that the object of the act is to be considered and liberal meaning is to be given and not the literal meaning is to be given. Learned Advocate Mr. P.S. Mirache rightly relied upon the judgment in Dalit and others Vs. Union of India, through General Manager, Sough Central Railway, Secunderabad, reported in 2019 (6) BCR 444, wherein after referring several decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court it is held by this Court at Aurangabad Bench that merely because railway ticket was not recovered from dead body, it cannot be said that deceased was travelling without ticket. Possibility that ticket may have been lost during course of untoward incident cannot be ruled out. Here in the present case also as deceased was trying to catch the train in that circumstances possibility of missing the ticket cannot be ruled out and therefore contention of the railway that she was not having bona fide ticket is not sustainable. Admittedly, in the present case, it is not disputed that the deceased met with an accident on 12.2.2006 when she was attempting to catch the train. The appellant has not disputed that she was trying to catch the train and at that time she met with an accident. There is no dispute that the dead body of Deeplaxmi was found on railway track. The accident is also noted by the witnesses examined by the railway. The appellant has not disputed that she was trying to catch the train and at that time she met with an accident. There is no dispute that the dead body of Deeplaxmi was found on railway track. The accident is also noted by the witnesses examined by the railway. Though their evidence remained unchallenged, but it also supports the case of the claimants that while she was boarding in the train she met with an accident and succumbed to the death. 14. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court indicate that the legal position explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in case of injury in the case of boarding or de-boarding a train would be ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A of Act merely on plea of negligence of victim as a contributing factor. It is also well settled by the decision of the Apex Court that merely because the deceased has attempted to catch the train and sustained injury is not sufficient to show that it is a self inflicted injury, but for inferring that self inflicted injury the intention should be proved. It is further held by the Apex Court that for a criminal act to come under section 124A of the Railways Act, there has to be an intention either to cause loss to anybody else or to himself/herself or to the railways in respect of its property. Therefore, though Railway claims that case covers under Section 124A is not sufficient to show that it was intentional self inflicted injury. It is not the case of the Railway that deceased has committed suicide, but admittedly it is the case that while catching the train, she met with an accident and sustained the injuries. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the observations of this Court, there is no reason to take a different view. In view of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court here also the railway is liable to pay compensation to the claimants as claimants have proved that accident took place when deceased was attempting to catch the train and covered under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. 15. The learned Advocate Mr. In view of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court here also the railway is liable to pay compensation to the claimants as claimants have proved that accident took place when deceased was attempting to catch the train and covered under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. 15. The learned Advocate Mr. P.S. Mirache also submitted that in view of notification issued on 22nd December, 2016 w.e.f. 1.1.2017 the compensation amount was enhanced upto Rs.8,00,000/-. 16. Learned Advocate Ms. Neerja Choubey submitted that however, the claimants are not entitled for any interest on the enhanced amount of compensation. 17. Learned Advocate Mr. Mirache also placed reliance on Union of India Vs. Prabhakar S/o. Venkatrao Tadkalaskar (since died), through legal heir Shantabai W/o. Prabhakarrao Tadkalaskar, reported in 2020 (3) Mh.L.J. 227 , wherein this Court had considered the aspect of enhancement and in view of notification enhanced the compensation from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-. 18. In view of the above decision there is no reason to take divergent view. In the present matter also claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, following order is passed : ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 24.7.2009 is modified and thereby appellant is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondents within a period of sixty days from the receipt of the copy of the judgment, after deducting the amount already paid to the respondents. (iii) The appeal is accordingly disposed of.