ORDER : (Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.) : This appeal is filed Under section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1987 Act”) by the appellant/railways aggrieved by the judgment dated 16-4-2019 in O.A./No. IIu/2014/0240 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as “the RCT”) whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/claimants filed under section 16 of the 1987 Act, passed an award of compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of death of Bhimsen @ Ramesh Singh Rathore, who died in train accident while travelling in a train on 1-6-2013. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties referred to as they are arrayed before the RCT. 3. The facts of the case, as summarized in the impugned order as extracted below. 4. Smt. Rajkumari Rathore and Smt. Munni Bai and Panchu Rathore who are the wife and parents of the deceased have filed the present claim application praying compensation for the death of the deceased-Bhimsen @ Ramesh Singh Rathore on 1-6-2013 in an untoward incident. On 1-6-2013, the deceased was travelling from Anuppur to Bilaspur by Ajmer-Durg Express due to heavy crowd in the train the deceased was standing near the door due to push by passengers, the deceased unexpectedly fell down from the running train near Jaithhari Chhulha down home signal at around 2:30 p.m. due to which he sustained injuries and died on the spot. 5. On the same day, at about 2:55 p.m. the driver of the Train No. 18233 (Narmada Express) Shri S. K. Mishra gave a written memo to the Police Station, Jaithhari stated that the dead body was lying beside the track near Pole No. 856/06 which is in the Jaithhari and Chhulha station near down home signal. 6. Basing on the intimation, the Government Railway Police, Jaithhari registered a Marg No. 20/13 and dead body was sent to the Government Hospital Jaithhari and conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and handed over to his relatives. 7. On account of death of the deceased-Bhimsen @ Ramesh Singh Thakur, the wife and parents of the deceased filed a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. 8. The respondent-Railways filed a written statement along with DRM’s report through Deputy Chief Commercial Manager wherein they have stated that the deceased was neither travelling in train nor fell down from any train. 4,00,000/-. 8. The respondent-Railways filed a written statement along with DRM’s report through Deputy Chief Commercial Manager wherein they have stated that the deceased was neither travelling in train nor fell down from any train. As no journey ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased; as no entry about the incident in the station diary of Jaithhari, Railway Police Station, further averred that in its DRM’s report the incident happened on 1-6-2013, further averred that the train Ajmer-Durg Express has neither run on 1-6-2013 nor 13-6-2013, therefore, the South East Central Railway not liable to pay any compensation. 9. In view of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues : 1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the time of occurrence of the alleged untoward incident ? 2. Whether the death of the deceased caused due to said alleged untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989? 3. Whether the respondent Railway Administration is protected under section 124-A of Railways Act and is not liable to pay compensation to the applicants? 4. Whether the applicants is the legal dependent of the deceased to claim/receive the compensation, if any, granted? who else are the dependents ? 5. Relief and cost ? 10. In order to establish their claim at the time of inquiry, the first applicant/claimant, the wife of the deceased, examined as AW-1 and exhibits A-1 to A-8 marked on behalf of the claimants, Mr. R. S. Mishra, Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Anuppur examined as RW-1 and no documents marked on behalf of the respondent/Railways. 11. On appreciation of evidence of AW-1 and placing reliance on Ex. A-1 to A-8 and the evidence of RW-1, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train and he fallen from the said train as such the case of the applicants falls under the definition of untoward incident as contained under section 123(c)(2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act and further held that the respondent railways is not protected under exception clause of section 124-A of the Railway Act and further held that all the applicants/claimants awarded amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of the deceased in an untoward incident. 12. 8,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of the deceased in an untoward incident. 12. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal, the appellant-Railways herein preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the judgment dated 16-4-2019 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in O. A. No. IIu/2014/0240. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Railways and learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent and perused the material available on record. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant-Railway submit that the impugned judgment and order is not in accordance with law and further submit that whether the said train Ajmer-Durg Express did not pass in Anuppur-Bilaspur section either on 1-6-2013 or 13-6-2013, further submit that the deceased died not due to untoward incident and the claimant filed application claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- but the learned Tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction and awarded amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- in contrary to the law and rules and by the date of accident the Part-I of the Schedule of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation), Rules, 1990 not amended, further submit that awarding amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- against the claim amount is erroneous and further submit that the learned Tribunal committed grave error on the facts and law and, therefore, prays to allow the appeal and set-aside the judgment and order dated 16-4-2019 passed by the learned Railways Claims Tribunal. 15. In the light of the above arguments, the points for determination is :— “Whether there was any merit in the petition to set aside the judgment dated 16-4-2019 passed by the Claims Tribunal?” 16. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of provisions of Railways Act, in particular Chapter-VIII which deals with the liability of Railway Administration for the death and injury to the passenger due to the accidents. Section 123(c) defines “untoward incident” as per clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers would be an “untoward incident”. As per section 124-A, the Railways Administration is liable to pay compensation on account of untoward incident. When in the course of working of 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 as such, would entitle a passenger who has been injured or died. When in the course of working of 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 as such, would entitle a passenger who has been injured or died. The claim can be maintained to recover the damages, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Railway is liable to pay compensation as prescribed for such untoward incident. 17. A decision reported in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 , para-29 is concluded as thus : “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.” 18. In view of the said legal position, on the basis of pleadings and the material placed on record before the Claims Tribunal, the finding of Claims Tribunal do not suffer from any factual infirmity, inconsistency or legal infirmity so as to warrant the Appellate Court to interfere therewith, or any question of fact, or finding, or law and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and all the issues, framed by it as correct and sustainable, both, at fact and law. 19. By virtue of the above mentioned provisions (supra), 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. 19. By virtue of the above mentioned provisions (supra), 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. The learned Tribunal have held that as per Panchayatnama under Exhibit A-4 clearly reveals by the Panchas that the deceased was fallen down from the train and died on account of injuries sustained, further held that as per the Panchayatnama one yellow polythene bag was found 50 meters away from the body which contained medicines and other items, in such a situation, there is every probability ticket might have got lost. On perusal of the award, further it is revealed that the Tribunal has directed the respondent/railway to file TSR on 9-11-2017 and the next date fixed for argument was 30-1-2018, the respondent-railways not filed the TSR and, therefore, it could not be proved through reliable evidence that on the day i.e. 1-6-2013 Ajmer-Durg Express did not run, therefore, it cannot be said the deceased did not fall from Ajmer-Durg Express and the respondent-Railway has not filed any cogent reliable evidence to prove that either the deceased had not fallen down while travelling or was not a bona fide passenger, in such circumstances, the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train and had fallen from the train which comes under the definition of “untoward incident” and as contained in section 123(c)(2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act. 20. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Satish Patidar, 2003(4) M.P.L.J. 306 ; wherein it is held : “27. This brings us to point No. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as the claimants could not establish that he purchased the ticket. The burden to prove that the deceased had a valid ticket during his journey which he proceeded cannot be placed on dependents. Obviously, such burden of proof is impossible to be discharged by the dependents who can have no means of knowledge whether the deceased before boarding the train had purchased the valid ticket. The burden to prove that the deceased had a valid ticket during his journey which he proceeded cannot be placed on dependents. Obviously, such burden of proof is impossible to be discharged by the dependents who can have no means of knowledge whether the deceased before boarding the train had purchased the valid ticket. It is likely that such a deceased passenger had a valid ticket but the same was lost in accident. To place the onus of proof dependents would amount to denial of the benefit of legislation to them for reasons beyond their control. In the case before us, the presumption has to be drawn that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Therefore, we affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.” 21. Another decision of Hon’ble Apex Court Kalandi Charan Sahoo vs. South-East Central Railways, (2019) 12 SCC 387 , relevant para-5 concluded as thus : ………... we find that it is not even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the provisions of section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which warrants payment of compensation whenever an untoward incident occurs whether or not such an incident has occurred by any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. ………………. 22. In the instant case the first applicant has filed an affidavit and examined as AW-1 along with the documentary evidence in the form of Exhibits A-1 to A-8 and thus they have discharged their initial burden. Accordingly, the burden shifts to the respondent-railway to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. In discharge of such burden, the respondent filed investigation report submitted by Mr. Accordingly, the burden shifts to the respondent-railway to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. In discharge of such burden, the respondent filed investigation report submitted by Mr. R. S. Mishra, Sub-inspector which discloses that he examined the witness and recorded the statements have deposed about the incident based on the information provided by the driver of Narmada Express in Train No. 18233, however, the said investigation report shows that there is no foul play is suspected in the cause of death of the deceased and it is a clear case of “accidental death due to fall down from an unknown down running train” merely because the deceased was not possessing journey ticket it cannot be said that the deceased did not die in an “untoward incident”, thus following the above judgments stated (supra), the contention of learned counsel for the respondent-Railways that the deceased was not bona fide passenger is unsustainable and, therefore, this Court is of the view that the expression “accidental fall of a passenger from a train carrying passenger” includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. deceased is travelling in a passenger train and falls down from the running train due to heavy crowd in the compartment pushed by the other passengers the deceased unexpectedly fall down from the running train. Hence it is an untoward incident as defined in section 123(c) of the Railways Act. Accordingly, the applicants held entitle for compensation. 23. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The idea is to afford the benefit of amendment to the extent possible awarded amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 24. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Union of India vs. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410 , the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules) provide for a Schedule prescribing the amount of compensation payable in respect of death and injuries. During the pendency of the matter by way of amendment, the amount of compensation which was earlier at the level of Rs. 4,00,000/- in case of death was raised to Rs. 8,00,000/-. 25. The learned Tribunal awarded amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- against the claim of Rs. During the pendency of the matter by way of amendment, the amount of compensation which was earlier at the level of Rs. 4,00,000/- in case of death was raised to Rs. 8,00,000/-. 25. The learned Tribunal awarded amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- against the claim of Rs. 4,00,000/- following the judgment of Rina Devi decided on 8-5-2018 held that it is beneficial legislation whichever two amounts, the higher should be paid as per under Part-I of the Schedule of the Railways Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation Rules) Amended 2016 are entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/- 26. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only upto the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record, if the learned Tribunal considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the learned Tribunal may pass such an award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award “just compensation”, even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. The learned Tribunal is expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation that should appear to be just and proper. The compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, taking into consideration and the Amended Rules, 2016 followed by Rina Devi’s judgment decided on 8-5-2018 and the Apex Court judgments (supra) the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal awarded just and reasonable amount considering the Amended Rules, Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation), Rules, 1990 awarded amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 27. 8,00,000/-. 27. Therefore, after perusing the impugned orders of the said learned Tribunal, vis-à-vis, the arguments advanced by the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that the findings of the learned Tribunal are satisfied with the same, as correct, and are according to law, and do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency, or legal infirmity, so as to warrant the Appellate Court, to interfere therewith, on any question of fact, or, finding, or law, further this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, and all the issues, framed by it, as correct and sustainable, both, at fact and law and awarded just compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality, irregularity and needs no interference and the award passed by the learned Tribunal is justified in accordance with law as stated (supra). 28. Accordingly, as per the above discussion, in view of aforesaid settled law, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and is accordingly dismissed and confirmed the impugned order dated 16-4-2019 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal in Case No. O.A/IIu/2014/0240. i. The respondent/Railway Administration shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order in terms of the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. ii. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stands closed.