JUDGMENT : (Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.) : This appeal is preferred under section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1987 Act”) by the appellants/claimants aggrieved by the judgment dated 11-1-2018 in O.A/IIu/2013/0360 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as “the RCT”) whereby, claim petition filed by the appellants/ claimants filed under section 16 of the 1987 Act read with section 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989 for compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh) with interest against the respondent/Railways on account of death of deceased-Jagdish Sharma in an untoward incident alleged to have been occurred on 20-2-2013, has been rejected. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before the RCT. 3. The brief facts of this case as summarized in the impugned order are that on 20-2-2013, the deceased Jagdish Sharma was travelling by Rewanchal Express from Bhopal to Ganj Basoda holding a valid second class ticket which was lost in the incident. It is further stated that when the train is going on, due to heavy crowd in the general compartment, the deceased was standing near the door and he fell down near Vidisha railway station from the running train due to jolting of the train and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Mr. Raghuweer Singh sent the information to GRP Police, Vidisha and, in turn, GRP Police, Vidisha registered a death intimation vide Merg No. 04/2013 and GRP police visited the scene of occurrence and prepared the Panchayatnama and shifted the dead body to the Government Hospital, Vidisha for autopsy. Claimants/appellants have alleged that according to the police documents, the deceased-Jagdish Sharma was a bona fide passenger fallen from the train while travelling in the passenger train and died on account of injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident and as such the appellants are entitled to compensation as provided under section 124-A of Railways Act. 4. The claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Jagdish Sharma filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs Rupees) before the RCT on account of the death of the deceased in an untoward incident occurred on 20-2-2013 as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. 1989. 5. 4. The claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Jagdish Sharma filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs Rupees) before the RCT on account of the death of the deceased in an untoward incident occurred on 20-2-2013 as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. 1989. 5. The respondent-Railways filed written statement through the Projecting Officer, RCT, Bhopal whereby it is averred that the incident narrated in column No. 6 of the claim petition is denied stating that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train, he was travelling from Bhopal to Ganj Basoda without having a valid ticket and had fell down from the running train near Vidisha railway station, further averred that the respondent/Railways has alleged that the deceased due to fear of getting caught by ticket checking staff, attempted to alight from the train before the train could take its position, resulting in occurrence of the alleged incident, further averred that the incident does not fall within the purview of section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act on account of sheer negligence on the part of the deceased himself, the incident caused, the claim application filed by the claimants is not tenable and prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. 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 the 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 the Railways Act, 1989 and is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants? 4. Whether the applicant is the legal dependent of the deceased to claim/receive the compensation, if any, granted ? who else are the dependents? 5. Relief and cost ? 7. In order to establish the claim of the applicants at the time of inquiry, the applicant No. 5-Shyam Bai-mother of the deceased filed an affidavit examined as AW-1 and she was cross-examined and supported her evidence exhibits A-1 to A-12 were got marked on behalf of the appellants. Respondent/Railways have not led any evidence, exhibit R-1 DRM’s report got marked. 8. Respondent/Railways have not led any evidence, exhibit R-1 DRM’s report got marked. 8. On appreciation of evidence of AW-1 and placing reliance on Ex. A-1 to A-12 and Ex.R-1, the learned Tribunal in the instant case came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased does not attract provisions of section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act as he was not a bona fide passenger and travelling without a valid ticket is not an untoward incident and accordingly, railway is not liable to pay any compensation and dismissed the claim. 9. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the judgment dated 11-1-2018 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and adequate amount of compensation may be awarded. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation instead of dismissing the claim application holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train and the incident was not an untoward incident, further would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal ignored the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and dismissed the claim is contrary to the law. Further would submit that the respondent/Railways have not discharged the burden by examining any of the witnesses in supporting the plea taken in the written statement and further submits that the occurrence was an outcome of the untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and further contended that there was a huge crowd in the compartment, due to jolting of the train the deceased lost his balance and fell down from the running train and he succumbed to the injuries, further would submit that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. In fact, the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of incident and suffered from an untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. Further would submit that the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal suffers from infirmity and needs interference of this Court and, therefore, prays to set aside the judgment passed by the claims Tribunal and the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded. 12. Further would submit that the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal suffers from infirmity and needs interference of this Court and, therefore, prays to set aside the judgment passed by the claims Tribunal and the adequate amount of compensation may be awarded. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/Railways submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has considered the investigation report submitted by the GRP in which it is mentioned that the deceased has neither any valid ticket nor any ticket was recovered from his possession or produced before the learned Tribunal by claimants and, therefore, the deceased is not a bona fide passenger and further submit that the judgment passed by the RCT is in accordance with law and the findings of the Tribunal are correct and do not suffer from any factual infirmity and the award passed by the Tribunal is correct and sustainable, both, at facts and law. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is lack of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the light of the above arguments, the point for determination is :— “Whether there was any merit in the petition to set aside the judgment dated 11-1-2018 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A/Iiu/2013/0360?” 14. Considered the submissions of the respective counsel representing the parties and perused the provisions of Railways Act, in particular Chapter XIII which deals with the liability of the Railway Administration for the death and injury to the passenger due to accident. Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act defines “untoward incident”, as per clause 2 of section 123(c), the incident of falling of any passenger from the train would be an untoward incident. As per section 124-A of Railways Act, the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation on account of an 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 the passenger who has been injured or died, the claim can be maintained to recover damages, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Railway is liable to pay compensation as prescribed for such untoward incident. 15. 15. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 as stated (supra), para 29 concludes 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”. 16. In view of the said legal position and on the basis of the pleadings and the material placed on record before the learned Claims Tribunal, the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal suffer from infirmity. 17. In the written statement, the respondent/Railways have taken a plea that on account of sheer negligence on the part of the deceased himself, the incident occurred and no valid ticket possessed by him and therefore, the incident is not an untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and the appellants are not entailed to claim compensation. In support of their claim, though, taken plea in the written statement, the respondent/Railway has not adduced any evidence to substantiate their claim. The Railway has failed to examine any of witness to establish the fact that the deceased was travelling without ticket and since the deceased had boarded the train, the presumption would be that the person has a valid authority to travel, therefore, it was not justified in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 18. In this context reference can be had of a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in 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. 18. In this context reference can be had of a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in 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. 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.” 19. In light of above decision, it is suited this case, since the respondent/Railways Administration admitted in the written statement that the deceased was travelling in unknown train. In view whereof, it is held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in the accident due to falling down from the running train which being an untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act. 20. Another decision reported in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railway, 2018 ACJ 1460 wherein in para-4 reads 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. 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 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. 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 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. We are informed that, at the material time, compensation payable under the said provision was Rs. 4 lakhs. 21. Going by the aforesaid decision in a particular facts of this case, where no inquiry is mandated by the rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, I am of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. 22. In support of above decision, it is clearly appeared from the present facts of this case, though the respondent/railways had taken a plea in the written statement that the deceased fell down from the running train is sheer negligence that caused accident. As per panchayatnama, it is mentioned that the deceased died due to fallen down from the running train (Rewanchal Express). In support thereof, the DRM report dated 26-12-2013 filed, in which, it is mentioned that due to negligence of the deceased, he fell down from the running train and succumbed to the injury and provision of section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act are not attracted as he was not a bona fide passenger and travelling without valid ticket is not an “untoward incident”. The investigation report dated 6-12-2013 stated that deceased-Jagdish Sharma was travelling in Rewanchal Express from Bhopal to Ganj Basoda without having valid ticket and he fell down from the running train and succumbed to the injuries. After receiving information from the Station Superintendent, he sent the information to GRP who visited to the scene of incident and shifted the dead body to the Government Hospital, Vidisha for autopsy. Later the post-mortem was conducted and the Doctor opined regarding the cause of death as under, “the cause of death is cardio respiratory failure and due to vital part of injury by train.”. 23. Later the post-mortem was conducted and the Doctor opined regarding the cause of death as under, “the cause of death is cardio respiratory failure and due to vital part of injury by train.”. 23. After having perusal of entire evidence and the provisions of compensation under the Railways Act has been enacted for the welfare of the sufferer of an untoward incident. Therefore, in the alleged accident, it could not be expected from the dependant that they should prove that the deceased had a valid ticket at the time of incident. On perusal of Panchayatnama and the police report has categorically stated that the deceased fallen from running train while travelling in the passenger train, though the respondent/railway taken plea that on his own negligence he fallen from the running train but that plea was not covered in clause (a) to (e) of the proviso of section 124-A of the Railway Act, therefore, the accident in which Jagdish Sharma died is clearly not covered by proviso to section 124-A. The accident did not occur because of any of the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso of section 124-A of the Railways Act. Hence this Court is of the opinion that the present case is clearly covered by the main body of section 124-A of the Railways Act and not its proviso. 24. In such circumstances, learned Tribunal is bound to follow the presumption in favour of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in such train as a bona fide passenger. In the background of this case as stated above, the manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door due to heavy crowd in the compartment, he accidentally fell down from the running train. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act or shown to be negligence of the deceased adducing any proper evidence by respondent/Railways and it certainly not criminal act or negligence, however, in the instant case no evidence was adduced by the respondent/railway to substantiate the plea taken in the written statement. Thus, the respondent/Railway cannot escape from their liability and the accident in which Jagdish Sharma died is clearly covered by section 124-A of the Railways Act. 25. Thus, the respondent/Railway cannot escape from their liability and the accident in which Jagdish Sharma died is clearly covered by section 124-A of the Railways Act. 25. In the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi stated (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that on the burden of proof, which emphasized that any person found dead or injured on the Railway premises, he is presumed to be a bona fide passenger unless Railway Administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of Tribunal are perverse. In the instant case, the respondent/Railways has not adduced any evidence to substantiate their plea that the deceased fallen down from the running train on his own negligence, therefore, the findings of learned Tribunal are perverse and the respondent/Railways have failed to establish that whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not as the burden lies on the respondent authority. Hence, Railway Administration cannot escape from his liability on the ground of not possessing valid ticket by the time of accident and since the person or deceased travelling without ticket was punishable, the burden was on the Railway Administration to prove that the person was not a bona fide passenger. The Railway Administration has a special knowledge that whether the ticket was issued or not. The Railways Act, 1989 has similar provisions in section 55 and 137, in view has led to interference that any person died or injured found on the railway premises has to be presumed to be a bona fide passenger, so as to maintain the claim for compensation. 26. The appellants/claimants are entitled to seek compensation as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410 , relevant para 11 is reproduced herein :— 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 [Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 ] 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. 27. Under such circumstances, mere absence of ticket of such injured or deceased do not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. In these circumstances, the negligence pleaded by the railway, even, if proved is to be ignored. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and ors., (2008) 9 SCC 527 and Jameela vs. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 3705 (supra), the stand of the railways that he died due to negligence (of course it was not established) is of no avail to railways because the case before them is an untoward incident and section 123 and 124-A incorporates the Rule of strict liability or in other words no fault liability. So in such circumstances, the negligence pleaded by the Railways, even if, proved is to be ignored. So in such circumstances, the negligence pleaded by the Railways, even if, proved is to be ignored. The principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar (supra) and Jameela (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case, since the appellants/claimants, who are the dependants of the deceased, they are eligible for compensation. 28. After perusing the impugned judgment of the learned Claims Tribunal vis-à-vis the arguments of learned counsel for respondent/railway, this Court is not satisfied with the same and the judgment of learned Claims Tribunal suffer from infirmity and findings recorded by the learned Tribunal is not correct and sustainable, both, at facts and law, there was no evidence led in by the railways, in the circumstances relying on Jameela (supra) held that even the case of passenger, who might have been standing near by door may be a negligently fallen from running train is covered by definition of an untoward incident, thus the dependents of the deceased are entitled to the maximum compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 29. Accordingly and as per the above discussion, this appeal is, thus, allowed and set-aside the impugned judgment dated 11-1-2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No. O.A./IIu/2013/0360, consequently, the claim application is allowed. The appellants are entitled compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only). The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondent/railways within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. No order as costs.