JUDGMENT : Subodh Abhyankar, J. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 by the appellants arising out of the judgment dated 8-9-2016, passed in Claim Case No. OA/IIU/2012/0033 by the Member, Technical Railway Claims Tribunal Bhopal, whereby, the claim submitted by the appellants on account of death of Sanjay Sangitra (deceased), has been rejected. 3. In brief, facts of the case are that the appellants are the wife and minor children of Sanjay Sangitra (deceased), who was resident of Nagda Road, Khachrod, District Ujjain, and was a daily commuter from Khachrod to Ujjain for which he had also made a monthly season Ticket which is proved as Ex-A-9. 4. According to the appellants, Sanjay Sagitara (deceased) had left home to work at Ujjain, however, while coming back, he fell down from the train somewhere between Ujjain and Khachrod, and subsequently his body was recovered. In the application, it is mentioned that the applicant was travelling in Train No. 59394. The learned Member of Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as “RCT”) after recording the evidence, has rejected the claim holding that although it is claimed by the claimants that the deceased was coming from Ujjain to Khachrod from Train No. 59394, however, the material on record proves that the deceased cannot be the passenger of Train No. 59394 as claimed by the appellants. However, it was also observed that as per Naksha Panchayatnam (Ex-A-4), it is mentioned that the deceased had died as he was cut by a train, and thus, it was held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of Train No. 59394-UP at the time of alleged accident, hence the question of fall of the deceased from the aforesaid train does not arise. 5. 5. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No. 12962, and had fallen from the aforesaid train which is also reflected from the enquiry report (Annexure R-1) proved by the respondent, and it is also mentioned that in the aforesaid report that on 20-5-2011, Sanjay Sangitra (deceased) after completing his duty boarded Train No. 12962 UP for Kachrod on monthly season Ticket No. 82925232 (Ujjain to Kachrod) which was valid from 3-5-2011 to 2-6-2011, and was standing on the door of the said train however, he suddenly fell down at 685/8-10 Km at Bedavanya Khachrod route, and died on the spot. Thus, counsel for the appellant has submitted that even as per the respondent, the accident did not took place from Train No. 59394, and in fact the deceased had boarded Train No. 12962 UP, and thus, it is submitted that the RCT had erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of Train No. 59394. 6. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that even otherwise assuming that the deceased boarded Train No. 59394, and fell down from it, in that case also the claimants were entitled to claim compensation as the death had arisen out of the deceased having boarded the train. 7. In support of his submissions, counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Hemlata and others vs. Union of India, reported as 2018 (3) ACCD 1249 (Del) and in paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 10 is as under :— “2. The appellants are the widow, minor son and parents of late Kamal Singh and they filed an application for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming compensation on the ground that Kamal Singh fell down between platform No. 3 and 5 of Old Delhi Railway Station on 13th January, 2011 at 5.00 P.M. According to the appellants, Kamal Singh and Dharam Pal Singh were travelling from Ghaziabad to Delhi in EMU train on 13th January, 2010 and when the train entered Old Delhi Railway Station, Kamal Singh fell down due to huge rush and jerk which resulted in fatal injuries. Kamal Singh lost his bag containing the railway ticket, money and other articles. 3. Kamal Singh lost his bag containing the railway ticket, money and other articles. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged at the time of the hearing that the untoward incident has been admitted by the respondent in their official records as well as the evidence filed before the learned Tribunal. 5. The legal position with respect to the untoward incident inside the railway station is well settled. Section 124-A of the Railways Act is based on the principle of no fault liability and the compensation cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground that the deceased was negligent and it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident” to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. The word “passenger” has been defined under section 2(29) of the Railways Act as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. The Explanation to section 124-A clarifies that the word “passenger” includes a railway servant on duty; and a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. As such, there are three categories of persons who are defined as passengers :— (i) a person with a valid ticket to travel; (ii) a person who holds a railway pass to travel and (iii) a person who holds a platform ticket. In each of the categories, so long as a person is in railway premises or a train, he is taken as a passenger. His or her presence in the railway premises or a train is taken as authorized. It is for this reason that there are decisions which extend meaning of the term “passenger” to a person who comes to a platform and gets into a wrong train [Gaurav Kapoor vs. Union of India, III (2014) ACC 639 (Del)] or a person who purchases a passenger train ticket and gets into an express train [Santoshi vs. Union of India, 2014 SCC Online Del 6510 (Del)]; person travelling atop a train and not inside a passenger compartment [Raj Pal Goel vs. Union of India, 2014 ACJ 2315] or a person breaking journey without an endorsement and getting into another train in continuation of the journey to the destination station [Dwarika Mahto vs. Union of India, 2013 ACJ 768 ]. In all these situations, it is possible to feed meaning and logic to the decisions only if we recognise that primacy always is the lawful authority to enter the railway premises when the incident of travel itself becomes secondary. 10. Following the above judgments, this Court is satisfied that Kamal Singh suffered an untoward incident on 13th January, 2011 at Old Delhi Railway Station and the appellants are entitled to compensation”. (emphasis supplied) 8. Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the date of accident was of 20-5-2011, and at that time as per the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 hereinafter to be referred to as “Rules 1990” was enforced, and according to section 3(1) and Schedule, the amount was Rs.4,00,000/-, however, the same has been increased to Rs.8,00,000/- by way of amendment after 1-1-2017. In this regard, counsel for the appellant has also drawn attention of this Court upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi and others vs. Union of India, reported as 2023 SCC Online SC 642 wherein in paragraph 21 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to other decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Yadav (supra) and also Rina Devi (supra) to hold that the claimants would be entitled to claim Rs.8,00,000/- even in those cases which took place prior to the date of amendment. Thus, it is submitted that after adding the interest on the amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- which the appellants were entitled to receive from the date of award dated 8-9-2016 along with interest @ 7% from the date of application, it would come to Rs.7,36,000/-, and according to the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi (supra), the appellants are entitled to receive compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. 9. Counsel for the appellant has fairly admitted that on account of some clerical mistake, the claimants have mentioned in their claim application that the deceased was coming to Khachrod from Train No. 59394-UP whereas as he was coming in Train No. 12962. 10. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no case for interference is made out. 11. 10. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no case for interference is made out. 11. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court finds force in the submissions put forth by counsel for the appellants, and is of the opinion that the learned Member of RCT has erred in holding that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation as it could not be proved by them that the deceased Sanjay Sangitra was bona fide passenger of Train No. 59394-UP, despite the fact that the respondents themselves have placed on record the enquiry report (Ex-R-1) in which it is clearly stated that the accident took place when the deceased was travelling in Train No. 12962-UP from Ujjain to Kachrod. In such circumstances, there was no reason for the RCT to take a different view which is not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, it is held that the deceased died while travelling from Train No. 12962. 12. In view of the same, the impugned judgment dated 8-9-2016 is hereby set aside, and considering the fact that the award was passed prior to the amendment of the Rules of 1990 on 1-1-2017, applying the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Kamukayi (supra) in which it is held has been held in paragraphs 11, 21, 22 and 23 as under :— “11. In view of the said legal position and on the basis of the pleadings and the material placed on record before the Claims Tribunal, it is required to be analysed whether the findings of the Claims Tribunal and High Court are just or perverse. 21. The said judgment was further explained by this Court in the case of Radha Yadav (supra), relevant para 11 is reproduced as thus : “11. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability had arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award, the higher of two figures would be the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs.4,00,000/-. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs.8,00,000/-, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration.” 22. The said view has been reaffirmed by this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dilip. 23. Accordingly and as per above discussion we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 26-3-2021 passed by the High Court and also the Claims Tribunal dated 29-6-2017. Consequently, claim application is allowed. The appellants are held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till its realisation. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondents within a period of eight weeks. No order as to costs.” 24. 13. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondents within a period of eight weeks. No order as to costs.” 24. 13. It is directed that the appellants shall be entitled to be paid a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 7% from the date of application which is 17-1-2012, which would come to Rs.3,26,666/- and thus, the total amount would be Rs.7,26,666/-, but the appellants would be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamukayi (supra). 14. Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal stands allowed. The claim of compensation amount be paid to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.