JUDGMENT URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. - Present appeal has been filed by the original claimants challenging the judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim application OA (IIu)/NGP/12/2019 dtd. 7/2/2020, whereby the claim for compensation filed by the present appellants came to be dismissed (parties are referred as per their nomenclature before the Tribunal). 2. Present claimants (appellants) are the parents of deceased Akash Vijay Barde, aged about 22 years, who had filed the petition for compensation on account of death of Akash in an untoward incident alleged to have occurred on 17/4/2018 when deceased Akash was travelling by train bearing No. 12132 Pune - Nagpur Express with valid ticket. When the train reached near Belapur Railway Station deceased Akash left the seat to attend the nature's call and was standing at the entrance of bogie after attending nature's call was pushed. Hence, he fallen on the railway track and sustained injuries. As per the contention of the claimants deceased accidentally fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot. As the death of the deceased is caused while boarding in the train, the claimants claimed compensation. 3. The respondent-Railway contested the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and death of the deceased is not caused in an untoward incident. It is further contention of the Railway that the statement given by the cousin sister and her evidence is contradictory which shows facts are manipulated by the claimants. The statements given by the claimants and the witnesses before the Investigating Agency are not trustworthy and, therefore, Railway is not liable to pay compensation. 4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing both sides the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that deceased Akash was not a bona fide passenger of the train on the relevant day and so also it was held that applicants have failed to prove that Akash died in an untoward incident. Therefore, claim application was dismissed. Hence, this present appeal. 5. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Sumesha Chaudhari for the appellants so also learned Advocate Ms. Neerja Choubey for the respondent. After hearing both the sides following points arise for my consideration: (i) Whether appellant proves that death of deceased Akash is caused in untoward incident? (ii) Whether deceased was 'bona fide passenger'? Hence, this present appeal. 5. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Sumesha Chaudhari for the appellants so also learned Advocate Ms. Neerja Choubey for the respondent. After hearing both the sides following points arise for my consideration: (i) Whether appellant proves that death of deceased Akash is caused in untoward incident? (ii) Whether deceased was 'bona fide passenger'? (iii) Whether judgment and award calls for any interference? 6. Learned Advocate Ms. Sumesha Chaudhari vehemently submitted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The applicants have led evidence by examining the cousin sister of the deceased who was travelling along with the deceased. Her evidence shows that they both were travelling by Pune - Nagpur Express by obtaining valid tickets. The said tickets are also produced on record by witness Pornima Prashant Wankhede. Said tickets are verified by the Railway administration and report to that extent is filed. It is certified by the Railway that the ticket No. G48609793 and G48609794 dtd. 17/4/2018, Pune to Akola were issued from Pune through ATVM No. PUNT14. The evidence of said Pornima Prashant Wankhede shows that she was travelling along with the deceased from Pune to Akola when the train was reached near Belapur Railway Station deceased went to attend the nature's call and when he was returning back towards his seat after attending the nature's call due to the rush of the people he fell down on the track, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Said witness is cross-examined at length by the learned Advocate of the Railway. During her cross-examination it is elicited that she had not personally witnessed the incident. She admitted that on the next day of the incident she had given the information to Vijay i.e. father of the deceased. Rest of the cross-examination is in the denial form. Thus, her evidence on record shows that at the time of incident she was travelling along with the deceased, but deceased left the seat to attend the nature's call and not returned back. She subsequently came to know that he met with an accident. 7. In support of the contention applicant No. 1 Vijay Namdev Barde also stepped into the witness box and testified that the deceased was travelling from Pune to Akola. Deceased had been to Pune for purchasing the clothes for the purpose of marriage and was returning along with his cousin sister Pornima. 7. In support of the contention applicant No. 1 Vijay Namdev Barde also stepped into the witness box and testified that the deceased was travelling from Pune to Akola. Deceased had been to Pune for purchasing the clothes for the purpose of marriage and was returning along with his cousin sister Pornima. He came to know from Pornima that deceased left the seat to attend the nature's call and while returning back due to the rush of the people he felled down on the track and sustained injuries and died on the spot. Admittedly, said Vijay applicant No. 1 is not the eye witness of the incident. He has no personal knowledge about the said incident. Besides oral evidence claimants also relied upon the Police papers. During the investigation Investigating Agency has recorded the statements of Pornima who was travelling along with the deceased. Police have also drawn the spot panchanama and inquest panchanama regarding the alleged incident. The Railway Administration has also carried out the investigation. The investigation report is at Exh.-A-23. The recitals of the investigation report shows that during the inquiry they have recorded the statements of witnesses, in the post mortem report the cause of death is mentioned as multiple injuries. From the above inquiry based on the investigation papers the facts came to the notice of the Railway administration that on 17/4/2018 deceased was found lying at Belapur Railway Station near Masjid towards MMR, no any ticket found in possession of the deceased but on 24/4/2018 deceased co-passenger submitted both the journey tickets. The deceased went to the toilet but he did not came back. Deceased was standing in the entrance of bogie, he fell down from the running train due to the loss of his balance and seriously injured. Deceased died during the treatment. Similar statement had been given by the deceased co-passenger, as well as his cousin sister. Thus, the investigation report regarding the investigation carried by the Railway Authority shows that the deceased was travelling by Pune Nagpur train and while returning back by attending the nature's call he was standing at the entrance of the bogie and he fallen on the ground and sustained injuries and died on the spot. 8. In support of the defence Railway has examined Omprakash Horilal Bharti who was working as a Deputy Station Master Belapur. 8. In support of the defence Railway has examined Omprakash Horilal Bharti who was working as a Deputy Station Master Belapur. His evidence is to the extent that train 12132 is not having schedule halt or passed from Belapur Railway Station. He further deposed that train No. 12135 Pune Nagpur Express arrived at platform No. 2 at about 22.17 hours and departed at about 22.19 hours. One unknown injured person lying by the side of main line near Masjid was found. This fact was informed to the GRP and RPF Belapur Railway Station. The information furnished by him to the GRP is also filed on record along with the chart. The Railway further examined another witness Navnath Sambhaji Jagtap, who was working as a 'Guard'. His evidence is also to the extent that train arrived at Belapur Railway Station on platform No. 2 at about 22.17 hours. During his duty hours no untoward incident was reported. Witness Omprakash was cross-examined. He admitted during the cross-examination that he had not personally witnessed the incident. No one has reported him about any suicide or coming in front of the train engine of any train. Thus, both the witnesses of Railway came with a case that no untoward incident was reported to them and thus deceased has not died due to the untoward incident and hence claimants are not entitled for compensation. 9. It is further contention of the Railway that deceased himself was negligent. The Railway administration always announces the proclamation to the pilgrims that standing, sitting on the footboard and door can be deadly and dangerous. The deceased has been negligent towards his security and has not followed directions given by the Railway administration from time to time. He committed offence against Sec. 156 of Railways Act, hence it is evident that person did not die due to any untoward incident as defined in Sec. 123(c) of the Railways Act. 10. On behalf of Railway it is vehemently submitted that the deceased has not died due to the untoward incident and, therefore, claimants are not entitled for the compensation. The another defence taken by the Railway is that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that count also claimants are not entitled for the compensation. Learned Tribunal appreciated the evidence and observed that the applicants have examined alleged co-passenger Pornima. Her evidence is not cogent and reliable. The another defence taken by the Railway is that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that count also claimants are not entitled for the compensation. Learned Tribunal appreciated the evidence and observed that the applicants have examined alleged co-passenger Pornima. Her evidence is not cogent and reliable. She produced the tickets after seven days. The Railway Tribunal further observed that the journey ticket was not found with the person of the deceased and thus the deceased was not the bona fide passenger. It is further observed by the Tribunal that the evidence of Pornima is contradictory and not reliable and therefore, disbelieved and the claim of the claimants is rejected. 11. Before entering into the merits of the case it is necessary to see the definition of untoward incident defined in Sec. 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 which reads as under: Sec. 123 (c) "untoward incident" means- (1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 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. 12. Now, by considering the definition of the untoward incident it is to be seen whether the deceased was travelling by the train which was carrying the passenger and whether he was holding valid ticket and therefore he was a bona fide passenger. As regards the contention of the Railway is concerned that the train tickets are produced on record, after lapse of seven days and therefore the evidence of co-passenger as well as production of train tickets is not acceptable. It is pertinent to note that the evidence on record shows that deceased was travelling along with his cousin sister Pornima who is examined as a witness. It is undisputed that she has produced the tickets on 25/4/2018. Said train tickets are at Exh.-A-33. It is pertinent to note that the evidence on record shows that deceased was travelling along with his cousin sister Pornima who is examined as a witness. It is undisputed that she has produced the tickets on 25/4/2018. Said train tickets are at Exh.-A-33. The Railway has verified the said train tickets and verification report is also on record issued by Chief Booking Supervisor Central Railway, Pune which shows ticket Nos. G48609793 and G48609794 dtd. 17/4/2018, Pune to Akola Express were issued from Pune through ATVM No. PUNT14. On perusal of the tickets show that the tickets were issued on 17/4/2018 i.e. on the relevant day of the incident. The genuineness of the tickets is verified by the Railway Authority and Railway Authority has confirmed the same that the tickets were issued from Pune. The case of the applicant is also that deceased and cousin sister obtained the tickets from Pune and were travelling from Pune to Nagpur. Thus, the fact that the deceased was having valid ticket is established by the claimants on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence. Merely because the tickets were produced after seven days is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of witness Pornima. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union Of India v. Rina Devi ., reported in (2018) 3 TAC 26 (S.C.), held that, the initial onus lies with the appellants/claimants to show that deceased was holding valid ticket. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negate 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. Here not only the evidence of AW 2 Pornima but the documents on record i.e. tickets which are verified by the Railway Authority sufficiently shows that the deceased and AW 2 Pornima were holding valid tickets. Therefore, the contention of the Railway that the deceased was not holding valid ticket and therefore he was not a bona fide passenger is unacceptable and unsustainable. 13. So far as the issue regarding untoward incident is concerned. Therefore, the contention of the Railway that the deceased was not holding valid ticket and therefore he was not a bona fide passenger is unacceptable and unsustainable. 13. So far as the issue regarding untoward incident is concerned. The investigation report of the Railway is on record which clearly shows that the deceased was travelling by Pune - Nagpur Express and he fell down from the train and sustained injuries. The Railway administration has carried out the investigation and in the investigation the Investigating Officer of Railway recorded the statements of co-passenger and cousin sister of the deceased who was travelling along with the deceased and thereafter submitted the report. Only the contention of the Investigating Agency is that deceased himself was negligent and in spite of the repeated instructions and directives issued by the Railway he was standing on the footboard and door which was deadly and dangerous. Thus, it is a self inflicted injury and, therefore, Railway is not liable to pay compensation and therefore the case of the deceased does not cover under untoward incident. 14. Before commenting on the evidence regarding the untoward incident it is necessary to see the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court 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." By referring various judgments Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the principles of statutory constructions are well settled. 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 traveling by air or in a private car. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford traveling 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 person from a train carrying passengers' includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and fells down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression. 15. In the light of the above principles, the evidence in the present case is appreciated. There is no dispute that the deceased was travelling in a train by holding valid ticket. It is also not disputed that the deceased felled from the train while travelling and sustained injuries and succumbed to the death. 16. Learned Advocate Ms. Neerja Choubey vehemently submitted that the evidence of AW 2 is suspicious as she has not reacted naturally after she noticed that her brother did not return back. The evidence of AW 2 shows that as her brother did not return back she made inquiry and she came to know that one person fell down from the train and sustained injuries. She further explained that she was travelling along with her small daughter and therefore she failed to understand what action to be done and therefore she continued her journey. It is common knowledge that different person react differently in similar situation. Therefore, merely because she has not pulled the chain or not reported the incident to the Railway administration is not sufficient to disbelieve her evidence and especially in the light that she was travelling along with deceased. She has produced the said tickets which sufficiently show her presence along with the deceased. Moreover, Railway official investigation report also shows her presence in the train as they have recorded her statements. 17. Now, only question arises is whether the act of the deceased standing at the entrance covered under the self inflicted injury. She has produced the said tickets which sufficiently show her presence along with the deceased. Moreover, Railway official investigation report also shows her presence in the train as they have recorded her statements. 17. Now, only question arises is whether the act of the deceased standing at the entrance covered under the self inflicted injury. Whether it covered under the self inflicted injury or not is dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union Of India v. Rina Devi ., (supra). It is well settled that for attracting the provisions of Sec. 124-A of the Railways Act intention of the person to have a self inflicted injury is to be proved. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment in para No. 16 held that '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'. The Hon'ble Apex Court has referred the earlier decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, reported in (2017) 13 Scale 652 , wherein it is laid down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on 'no fault theory' under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it is held 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 Sec. 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor. 18. Here in the present case admittedly the initial onus lies with the appellant to show that there is a death due to the untoward incident of a bona fide passenger, that burden is discharged by the claimants by adducing reliable evidence. The law only expects that claimants to discharge the burden on the basis of preponderance of probability by filing affidavit. Here not only the affidavit of the claimants but the claimants have adduced the evidence which is oral as well as documentary. Thus, onus is discharged by the claimants. Thus, claimants have proved that deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death was caused in an untoward incident. 19. Here not only the affidavit of the claimants but the claimants have adduced the evidence which is oral as well as documentary. Thus, onus is discharged by the claimants. Thus, claimants have proved that deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death was caused in an untoward incident. 19. The learned Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion merely observing that AW 2 has not acted naturally. Merely she had not reported the incident to the Railway administration or Police is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of AW 2. 20. Here in this case the untoward incident had taken place on 17/4/2018. The fact that deceased was travelling by the train and met with an accident is sufficiently established by the claimants. However, the Railway Tribunal has dismissed the claim. The observation of the Railway Tribunal deserves to be set aside in the light of oral as well as documentary evidence. 21. In the light of above evidence and as per the above discussion, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation as deceased died in an accident/untoward incident. Initially, the Railway Tribunal was liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4, 00, 000.00 on the death. However, Ministry of Railway by notification dtd. 22/12/2016 enhanced the compensation for death to the tune of Rs.8, 00, 000.00. Their petition claiming compensation was filed after the said notification, the untoward incident also has taken place after the notification. Therefore, said notification is applicable in the present case. In view of the notification, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the tune of Rs.8, 00, 000.00 along with the interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till the realization of the amount. Hence, I proceed to pass following order: (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The respondent-Railway is directed to pay amount of Rs.8, 00, 000.00 towards the compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application. (iii) The respondent-Railway shall deposit the said amount within three months. (iii) Appeal is disposed of.