JUDGMENT : Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 12/03/2019 passed in O.A.A. 175/2015 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad, wherein the application filed by the applicants under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs 10,00,000/- with interest and costs from the South-Central Railways, Secunderabad for the death of the deceased in an untoward incident that occurred on 22.04.2015, was dismissed. 2. For the sake of the clarity and convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred as per their status before the Tribunal. I. BRIEF FACTS 3. The applicant Nos.1 to 4, who are the wife and children of Syed Baba (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and are residents of Jahangirabad, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. The deceased was working as a cook. On 21.04.2014 after informing his wife, the deceased went to Mahabubnagar for cooking work and stayed overnight at the house of his relative, by name, Syed Hussain. After completion of his work, while returning along with his relative i.e., Syed Hussain, in the morning hours of 22.04.2015, the deceased purchased a journey ticket from Mahabubnagar to Falaknuma and thereafter boarded the Passenger Train Number 57306 (Guntur-Secundrabad). While travelling, the deceased allegedly slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train at kilometer No. 74/7-8, between Gollapalli and Balanagar railway stations and sustained severe fatal injuries, resulting in his death on the spot. It is the contention of the applicants that journey ticket was lost in the accident as the deceased suffered multiple injuries and also his clothes were badly torn. 4. In reply to the said application, the respondents filed a written statement denying all the allegations and averments made therein. The respondents contended that there was no cause of action for the applicants as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123, (c) (2) or Section 124-A of Indian Railways Act, 1989. It was further stated that an enquiry was conducted by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner (Sr.DSC), Hyderabad, into the alleged incident under The Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, which revealed that the Guard of the train stated that on 22.04.2015, he worked on the Train No. 57306 from Dhone to Kachiguda and during his duty hours, there was no jerk or jolt to the train and no passenger fell down from the said train. Therefore, according to the respondents, the incident was not an untoward incident, as there was no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. It was further stated that from the pocket of deceased, ten (10) visiting cards, in the name of the deceased, a slip containing mobile number and one white color paper slip were recovered but no journey ticket was found. Hence, the contention of the applicants that ticket was lost in the accident was denied and untenable. It was further alleged that the act of the deceased amounts to self-inflicted injury, falling within the exceptions under clauses (b) & (c) of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and therefore, the application was not maintainable before the Tribunal and the same was liable to be dismissed. It was further urged that in the inquest report, in column relating to ‘details of the loss of any luggage’, it was mentioned as ‘not applicable’ suggesting that the deceased had not lost anything including the journey ticket. It was further submitted that as per FIR No. 85/2015 dated 22.4.2015, Sri Chandulal, the Gang mate, Gang No.14, noticed a dead body aged about 38 years, lying beside the track at KM No. 74/6-7 between GLY-BABR and informed the on duty Station Master/Balanagar. The inquest report revealed that no journey ticket was found with the deceased and that on 22.04.2015, while travelling in an unknown train, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from a running train and died on the spot. It was further stated that the wife and brother-in-law of the deceased were present at the time of conducting the inquest report and nobody disclosed the train number. However, in the claim application, the applicants stated that the deceased travelled in train No.57306 (Guntur – Secunderabad). The PME report revealed that the cause of death was “POLYTRAUMA” and approximate time of death is “WITHIN HOURS”. The respondents therefore, denied that the applicants were entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, much less any interest therein in the circumstances of the case. II. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIBUNAL: 5. The following issues were framed for determination by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of untoward incident? 2. Whether appellant(s) is/ are dependent(s) of the deceased? 3. Whether the applicant(s) is/ are entitled to the compensation as claimed? 4. II. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIBUNAL: 5. The following issues were framed for determination by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of untoward incident? 2. Whether appellant(s) is/ are dependent(s) of the deceased? 3. Whether the applicant(s) is/ are entitled to the compensation as claimed? 4. To what relief? III. EVIDENCE ON RECORD: 6. The Applicant No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as AW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked on behalf of applicants. On the other hand, except filing Divisional Railway Manager’s Report (DRM) as Ex.R1, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL: 7. The learned Railway Claims Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the application holding that the deceased was neither proved to be holding a valid journey ticket nor was there any eyewitness to the alleged incident. The Tribunal further observed that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the entire claim was based on hypothesis, imagination, surmises and contrary to documentary evidence on record. 8. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order, dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad, and for grant of compensation as claimed. 9. Heard Ms. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondents and perused the record. VI. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and upon a careful examination of the material placed on record, the following issues arise for consideration in this Appeal: (i) Whether the learned Railway Claims Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger solely on the ground that no journey ticket was recovered from his body? (ii) Whether the death of the deceased occurred as a result of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? (iii) Whether the claim of the applicants is liable to be defeated merely on account of non-recovery of the journey ticket, in the absence of any cogent evidence adduced by the Railways to prove that the deceased was a ticketless traveller? (iii) Whether the claim of the applicants is liable to be defeated merely on account of non-recovery of the journey ticket, in the absence of any cogent evidence adduced by the Railways to prove that the deceased was a ticketless traveller? (iv) Whether the applicants had discharged the initial burden cast upon them under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and if so, whether the burden thereafter shifted to the respondent Railways? (v) Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and if so, to what extent? VIII. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: A. Contention of the Appellants 11. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Railway Claims Tribunal committed a manifest error in dismissing the claim application by proceeding on an unfounded presumption that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, solely on the premise that no journey ticket was recovered from his body. It was argued that such an approach is contrary to the statutory scheme under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and runs directly counter to the settled principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and various High Courts. 12. It is further contended, and rightly so, that the deceased had travelled a considerable distance of approximately 100 kilometres from Mahabubnagar to Gollapally prior to the occurrence of the accident. Throughout the said journey, the deceased was neither apprehended nor proceeded against under Sections 54 or 55 of the Railways Act by any Travelling Ticket Examiner. The train admittedly crossed several stations en route, where systematic checking of passengers for valid tickets is routinely undertaken. In the normal course of official functioning, a ticketless traveller would have been detected at one of the earlier stations and prevented from continuing the journey. The uninterrupted travel of the deceased over such a long distance, therefore, raises a strong and reasonable presumption in favour of his status as a bona fide passenger. In these circumstances, the claimants cannot be made to suffer on account of the laches, negligence, or failure of the railway authorities to effectively discharge their statutory duties, nor can such omission be used to defeat a legitimate claim under the beneficial scheme of the Railways Act. B. Contention of the Respondent Railways: 13. In these circumstances, the claimants cannot be made to suffer on account of the laches, negligence, or failure of the railway authorities to effectively discharge their statutory duties, nor can such omission be used to defeat a legitimate claim under the beneficial scheme of the Railways Act. B. Contention of the Respondent Railways: 13. Per contra, Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for the respondents, contended that except for the train journey ticket, all other documents of the deceased were found intact and secure in his pocket, including about ten visiting cards, and therefore the theory of loss or misplacement of the journey ticket cannot be accepted. On the said premise, it was urged that the deceased could not have been a bona fide passenger and the claim petition deserved dismissal. C. Undisputed Facts: 14. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the applicants and the deceased, particularly in view of the Aadhaar cards of the deceased and the applicants marked as Exs. A5 to A10, respectively. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found lying on the railway track on 22.04.2015. Further, there is no dispute concerning the registration of the crime on the death of the deceased, as is evident from Ex. A1, which records the occurrence on 22.04.2015. D. Evidence Regarding Bona Fide Travel: 15. In order to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of Train No. 57306, which was proceeding from Guntur to Secunderabad, the applicants relied upon the oral evidence of applicant No.1, who was examined as AW1. AW1 categorically deposed in her chief-examination that her husband went to Shamshabad on cooking work on 21.04.2015 and, after completion of the work, stayed there overnight at the house of their relative, Mr. Syed Hussain. She further deposed that while returning, her husband along with the said relative reached Mahabubnagar Railway Station in the morning hours of 22.04.2015, where her husband purchased a second-class ordinary passenger journey ticket from Mahabubnagar to Falaknuma and thereafter boarded Train No. 57306 (Guntur– Secunderabad). Though AW1 was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the respondent Railways, nothing was elicited to discredit her testimony or to establish that the deceased had not purchased a valid journey ticket. E. Failure of Railways to Produce Best Evidence: 16. Though AW1 was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the respondent Railways, nothing was elicited to discredit her testimony or to establish that the deceased had not purchased a valid journey ticket. E. Failure of Railways to Produce Best Evidence: 16. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that, despite it being the statutory obligation of the respondent authorities, no CCTV footage relating to the purchase of the journey ticket at the booking counter, nor the ticket issue register pertaining to platform tickets at Umdanagar Station, nor the CCTV footage relating to the arrival and departure of Train No. 57306 (Guntur–Medchal Passenger) at the relevant platforms, was produced before the Tribunal. The failure of the respondent authorities to place such material on record, which was admittedly within their exclusive control, assumes significance and weighs against the case sought to be projected by the Railways. F. Settled Legal Position on Burden of Proof: 17. The legal position is no longer res integra. In Union of India v. Rina devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 , the Honourable Supreme Court has authoritatively held that mere absence of a journey ticket on the person of the injured or deceased would not, by itself, negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The Court further held that the initial burden lies on the claimants, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit or adducing oral evidence of relevant facts, whereupon the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the same by cogent evidence. 18. In Kamukayi v. Union of India , (2023) 19 SCC 116 , the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated that once the claimant adduces oral evidence regarding purchase of ticket and boarding of the train, and such evidence remains unshaken in cross-examination, the onus shifts to the Railway Administration. The Court categorically held that a mere assertion that the ticket was not recovered from the deceased, without any substantive rebuttal evidence, is insufficient to dislodge the presumption of bona fide travel. The Court held as under: “In this regard, the ocular Statement of AW-1- Manikanta son of the deceased, who procured a valid train ticket for travel from Lalpettai to Karur and handed over the deceased is on record. The Court held as under: “In this regard, the ocular Statement of AW-1- Manikanta son of the deceased, who procured a valid train ticket for travel from Lalpettai to Karur and handed over the deceased is on record. As per the statement of AW-1, avermenis made in his claim petition have been testified and even in the cross examination, he has reiterated that ticket for deceased from Lalapettai to Karur was purchased for a sum of Rs.10/- and sent him off at station to go to Karur. The deceased fell down at Mahadanapauram Railway station. The said averment of the claim petition and the statement of D Ravisankar. Station Master finds support from inquest report prepared by the inquest officer on the date of incident Le. 27.09.2014 and the final report prepared by the Inquest officer, Rly police station Trichy on 14.11.2014. The said report has been referred to in the investigation report dated 07.06.2014, Considering the material brought on record, in our view, the initial burden that the decease passenger was having valid ticket has been discharged shifting onus on the Railway administration to disprove the said fact. Nothing has been placed Before Claims Tribunal or brought on record during the course of hearing that the Railway Administration has discharged the burden of not having the valid Railway ticket with decease passenger, except to say that during recovery ticket was not found. In absence of any cogent evidence, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed.” 19. Similarly, in Dolirani Saha v. Union of India , 2024 INSC 603 , the Honourable Supreme Court held that once the claimant places on record an affidavit and materials showing that the deceased was travelling in the train and that death occurred due to a fall during the journey, the burden of proof shifts entirely onto the Railways to establish otherwise. 20. The High Court of Kerala, in Union of India v. A. Geetha , 2018 ACJ 941 observed that the Railway authorities, being in the closest proximity to the place of incident and having exclusive access to the relevant records, are better placed to conduct a meaningful enquiry. The Court held that the Railways cannot take advantage of their own inaction or failure to conduct a proper enquiry to defeat a legitimate claim. 21. The Court held that the Railways cannot take advantage of their own inaction or failure to conduct a proper enquiry to defeat a legitimate claim. 21. In Daisy Jacob v. Union of India , MFA (RCT) No.139/2017 decided on 22.05.2025 , the Kerala High Court, while interpreting Rules 7 to 10 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, held that the scheme of the Rules clearly places the burden of investigation on the local police and railway officials. The Court recognized the practical helplessness of claimants, who are often far removed from the place of incident and held that the burden cannot be unfairly shifted onto them. The relevant observations are extracted hereunder: “6. I have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. At the outset it is to be noted that the proceedings under the Railways Act are not adversarial or litigative proceedings at all. A Division Bench of this Court in Jayalakshmi and another v. Union of India. [ 2011(2) KHC 706 ] had in this respect held as follows: "An anxious perusal of the relevant statutory provisions and the rules must convince that the framers of the statute and the rules did not reckon the proceedings as an adversarial litigative process at all. If there be any semblance of doubt on this respect, it will be appropriate to frequent oneself with the stipulations of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules 2003 (as amended in 2007). Rule 7 to Rule 10 clearly shows that the burden is on the local police and the officers of the force to conduct an inquiry/ investigation into the cause of the incident and come to appropriate conclusion. To us, it appears that the provisions clearly reveal due recognition and acceptance of the helplessness of the claimants who may be far far away from the scene/venue of the incident and consequentially incapable of adducing very compelling evidence in support of their claim. The realistic acceptance of the plight of the victims is perfectly clear from the mechanism stipulated for inquiry /investigation under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules 2003. The burden really is not placed entirely on the shoulders of the victims or claimants. The realistic acceptance of the plight of the victims is perfectly clear from the mechanism stipulated for inquiry /investigation under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules 2003. The burden really is not placed entirely on the shoulders of the victims or claimants. But the burden is placed on the shoulders of the railway and its officials to contact a proper inquiry to ascertain whether claimants are really entitled to the amounts or not." (emphasis added) 7. What follows from the above dictum is that when the local police submits a final report after inquiring into the incident, the same cannot be simply brushed aside stating that the travel ticket had not been produced and hence there is no evidence that the victim/ injured person was a bona fide passenger. The investigation and submission of a report by the police under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules is not a mere formality and the report carries its own evidentiary value and weight. 8. The question as to what circumstances would justify a victim of a railway accident to be termed as bonafide passenger in the absence of travel/ journey tickets is no longer re integra. This Court had after a detailed survey of the precedents on the point, lucidly encapsulated the law on the point in Girija's case (supra). In the said case, the claimant had filed an affidavit before the RCT wherein it is stated that her son was holding a general compartment ticket for the journey from Quilandy to Vadakara, which had been lost at the time of the accident, and that she was not in a position to produce the ticket. She also requested that the production of the ticket be dispensed with. This Court had held that the said affidavit is sufficient to discharge the initial burden on the part of the claimant especially since the respondents had not chosen to let in any contra evidence. She also requested that the production of the ticket be dispensed with. This Court had held that the said affidavit is sufficient to discharge the initial burden on the part of the claimant especially since the respondents had not chosen to let in any contra evidence. In Girija's case (supra) this Court had taken note of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Shahajad's case (supra) and had opined that the legal position has been to a certain extent set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi [ 2018 (2) KLT 1060 ] wherein various conflicting views of the different High Courts had been examined and it had been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though the mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the mere absence of a ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had therein held that there is an initial burden on the claimant which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts, and the burden will then shift onto the railways, and the issue can be decided on the facts shown and on the attending circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the approach should be to deal on a case-by-case basis based on the facts proved. It is thus well settled that the initial burden on the claimant will be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. In A.Geetha's case (supra), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the burden to adduce proof to the contrary is squarely on the shoulders of the railway and its officials and they have to discharge the same by conducting appropriate inquiry into the cause of the incident. When neither the railway nor its officials have conducted an inquiry of this nature, it is highly improper on them to blame the claimants for their inaction. In Leelamma's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had held that as per Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989, untoward incident includes the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. In Leelamma's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had held that as per Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989, untoward incident includes the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. As regards the burden to prove that the victim was a bonafide passenger, it was held therein as follows: "The question muted for consideration is whether due to the mere non-production of the ticket an adverse inference can be drawn by the Tribunal that the person who got injured and succumbed to death was travelling without a valid journey ticket and that he was not a bona fide passenger. According to the claimants, the deceased was holding journey ticket and the same was lost in the accident. The normal presumption is that a passenger in a railway holds a valid ticket. When the appellant respondent contends that the deceased was a passenger who fell down while attempting to board a train, the burden is heavily upon them to prove that he attempted such journey without purchasing a ticket. Since that burden is not discharged by the railway, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in rejecting the contention that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Railway Tribunal in such cases are perfectly justified in drawing a presumption that the person concerned was travelling or attempting to travel with a valid ticket and in such case the passenger cannot be termed as a not a bona fide passenger." (emphasis added) 9. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the provision of compensation in the Railways Act, 1989 is a beneficial piece of legislation and it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and it is covered by the main body of Section 124A and not its proviso. In Sunitha's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "Since the railway claims tribunals have been set up to consider cases of accidental death and injury in railway accidents We are of the opinion, as is fortified by the decisions of the Apex Court and the various High Courts, including that of this Court, that the endeavour of the Tribunal should be not to deny compensation to unfortunate victims. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of the claim petition is completely unjustified." (emphasis added) 10. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of the claim petition is completely unjustified." (emphasis added) 10. There was legally reliable evidence before the RCT by way of the report of the local police that the deceased had been a passenger on board the train and had fallen down from the said train leading to his death. The said evidence had its prima facie worth and value. As regards the question whether the deceased was holding a valid journey ticket and was thus a bona fide passenger, insofar as the applicants had filed an affidavit stating the material facts that relate to the journey of the deceased, wherein they had stated that the journey ticket as well as the bag of the deceased had been lost in the confusion that followed his fall the burden, as laid down by the precedents discussed above, had shifted on to the respondent. The said burden had not been discharged by the respondent. The RCT erred in concluding that the incident had not happened and also that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The judgment of the RCT is incorrect, legally unsustainable and fit to be set aside.” 22. This Court, in Sulochana and  others v. Union of India , CMA No.702/2017 decided on 22.07.2024 held that where the deceased had travelled a substantial part of the journey and the body was found along the railway track, a strong presumption arises that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The Court further observed that in cases where the clothes of the deceased were torn due to a fall from the train, the possibility of the journey ticket being lost or misplaced cannot be ruled out. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: “25. In the present case also, the deceased boarded the train at Bommasamudram Railway Station to go to Chittoor and his body was found on the way between Katpadiand Ramapuram Railway Stations. Thus, the deceased had covered a part of the journey from Bommasamudram till the place where his dead body was found. He had travelled with that ticket and he was a bonafide passenger, which presumption respondent - Railways failed to rebut. Thus, the deceased had covered a part of the journey from Bommasamudram till the place where his dead body was found. He had travelled with that ticket and he was a bonafide passenger, which presumption respondent - Railways failed to rebut. The facts and circumstances of the case also would disclose that the dead body of the deceased was dragged up to 18 sleepers and the clothes of the deceased were found to be torn. As such, there is every chance of the journey ticket, which could be placed in the clothes might be lost on the way. As such, the deceased shall be considered as a bonafide passenger.” 23. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in A. Thimmareddy and another v. Union of India , 2024 ACJ 2811 , held that any person found dead or injured within railway premises is presumed to be a bona fide passenger unless the Railways discharge the burden of proving the contrary by reliable evidence. G. Findings on Bona Fide Passenger Status: 24. Applying the above settled principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the applicants have discharged their initial burden through the consistent and unrebutted oral testimony of AW1 regarding purchase of ticket and boarding of the train. Consequently, the burden shifted to the respondent Railways to rebut the same. Except for the bald assertion that the ticket was not recovered from the deceased, no cogent oral or documentary evidence has been placed on record. In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and various High Courts, such omission is fatal to the defence of the Railways. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion and the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and various High Courts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the relevant point of time. H. Evidentiary Value and Legal Effect of DRM Report: 26. It is further to be noted that the respondent authorities failed to adduce any oral evidence to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and relied solely upon the DRM report marked as Ex. R1. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned Tribunal placed reliance upon the findings recorded in the said DRM report. The pivotal question, therefore, is whether Ex. R1. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned Tribunal placed reliance upon the findings recorded in the said DRM report. The pivotal question, therefore, is whether Ex. R1 can be safely relied upon to dislodge the presumption of bona fide travel, particularly when the applicants have specifically contended that the respondent authorities failed to conduct a fair and statutory enquiry and that the conclusions recorded in the DRM report are erroneous. 27. Under the scheme of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, read with the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, as amended in 2007, the Railway Administration is obligated to conduct a prompt, fair, and comprehensive enquiry and to place the relevant material on record along with its written statement. The applicants have specifically contended that the DRM report in the present case is contrary to the statutory framework and also violative of the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, vide letter No. 2015/Sec (Spl)/200/13 dated 30.12.2015, which mandates completion of investigation within sixty (60) days and fixation of responsibility in the event of non-compliance. 28. As borne out from the record, the incident occurred on 22.04.2015 and the Original Application was filed on 16.06.2015, whereas the DRM report under Ex. R1 came to be prepared only on 19.01.2016, nearly ten months after the date of the accident. Such inordinate delay is in clear violation of the Rules of 2003 and materially undermines the evidentiary value of the DRM report. A report prepared beyond the statutory time frame, without adherence to the prescribed procedure, cannot be accorded primacy so as to defeat a claim under a beneficial legislation. 29. In Kalindi Charan Sahu and another v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway , 2018 ACJ 1460 , the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated that the liability to pay compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act is one of strict liability, and once the occurrence of an untoward incident resulting in death or injury is established, compensation becomes payable irrespective of any wrongful act, neglect, or default on the part of the Railway Administration. The Court further held that the object and purpose of the beneficial legislation would be frustrated if claimants are denied compensation on the basis of procedural lapses, delayed investigations, or defective enquiries conducted by the Railways. The Court further held that the object and purpose of the beneficial legislation would be frustrated if claimants are denied compensation on the basis of procedural lapses, delayed investigations, or defective enquiries conducted by the Railways. It was categorically observed that failure to conduct the mandatory enquiry promptly and in accordance with the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 cannot be used to non-suit the claimants, and such omission on the part of the Railway Administration cannot enure to its benefit. The Honourable Supreme Court emphasized that where the Railways fail to discharge their statutory obligation of conducting a fair and timely enquiry, the burden cannot be shifted onto the dependants of the victim to disprove the conclusions drawn in such belated or defective reports. I. Findings on Date of Death: 30. One of the grounds on which the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition was that the date of death of the deceased was in dispute, based on Ex.A4 (Burial Receipt). The learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for the respondents supported the said finding and contended that if Exs.A3 and A4 reflect different dates, a serious doubt arises as to whether the deceased died on 21.04.2015 and was buried on the same day, and if so, how he could have suffered an untoward incident on the following day, i.e., 22.04.2015. 31. A careful perusal of the record, however, clearly dispels the above contention. Ex.A1 (FIR), Ex.A2 (Inquest Report), and Ex.A3 (Post-mortem Examination Report) uniformly and consistently record that the deceased was found dead on the railway track on 22.04.2015 at K.M. No. 74/7–8 between Gollapally and Balanagar stations. Even Ex.R1 (DRM Report) admits that the dead body of the deceased was found on the railway track on 22.04.2015. The FIR was registered on the same day at 9:15 a.m. based on information furnished by railway staff, and the inquest and post- mortem were conducted pursuant thereto. In the face of such consistent contemporaneous official records, the reference to the date 21.04.2015 in Ex.A4 cannot be accorded precedence. 32. In the considered opinion of this Court, the discrepancy in Ex.A4 is clearly a clerical or typographical error, which stands conclusively outweighed by the unimpeachable documentary evidence contained in Exs.A1 to A3 and Ex.R1. It is therefore held that the date of death of the deceased is 22.04.2015. J. Findings on Untoward Incident: 33. 32. In the considered opinion of this Court, the discrepancy in Ex.A4 is clearly a clerical or typographical error, which stands conclusively outweighed by the unimpeachable documentary evidence contained in Exs.A1 to A3 and Ex.R1. It is therefore held that the date of death of the deceased is 22.04.2015. J. Findings on Untoward Incident: 33. Further, the materials on record, including the FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, and the admissions in the DRM report, unmistakably establish that the deceased accidentally fell from Train No. 57306 between Gollapally and Balanagar stations and died on the spot. Consequently, the death of the deceased squarely falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. 34. It is not the case of the respondent Railways that the deceased committed suicide. It is also not the case of the respondent that the death occurred due to self-inflicted injury or as a result of any criminal act attributable to the deceased. Significantly, the respondent has neither pleaded nor adduced any evidence so as to bring the case within any of the statutory exceptions enumerated under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. In spite of the absence of such a plea or proof, the learned Tribunal, on its own, proceeded to hold that the death of the deceased fell within clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 124-A, which approach is legally unsustainable. 35. Ex.A2 – the Inquest Report, prepared by the Investigating Officer in the presence of railway officials, clearly records that the deceased accidentally fell down from the train and died. Ex.A1 – the FIR, registered on the basis of information furnished by railway staff, records that the deceased was found lying on the railway track. Further, Ex.A3 – the Post-Mortem Examination Report opines that the deceased might have fallen from the train. These contemporaneous official records consistently point to an accidental fall from the running train. When the oral testimony of AW1 is read in conjunction with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A3, and in the absence of any cogent or convincing evidence adduced by the respondent to establish the contrary, the only conclusion that emerges is that the death of the deceased was the result of an untoward incident. The learned Tribunal, therefore, ought to have held accordingly. K. Quantum of Compensation: 36. The learned Tribunal, therefore, ought to have held accordingly. K. Quantum of Compensation: 36. ?Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is not in dispute that the accident resulting in the death of the deceased occurred prior to the amendment dated 23.06.2016. Under the un-amended Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, the prescribed compensation for death was Rs.4,00,000/-. By virtue of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016, the said amount was enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/-. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. Radha Yadav , (2004) 2 SCC 1 , wherein it was held that the compensation payable shall be the higher of the two amounts, namely, (i) the amount payable as on the date of the accident together with reasonable interest till the date of award, or (ii) the amount prescribed under the Schedule as on the date of the award. It was held as under: “10. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of Rina Devi, 2018 ACJ 1441 (SC), 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. 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/-. 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.” 37. Applying the above principle, the applicants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the base compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kamukayi’s case (supra) , from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 16.06.2015, till the date of this judgment, i.e., 19.12.2025, which period comes to ten years and six months (126 months). 38. The interest amount payable for the aforesaid period is accordingly calculated as follows: Rs.4,00,000/- × 7% = Rs.28,000/- per annum; Rs.28,000/- × 10.5 years (126 months) = Rs.2,94,000/-. 39. Thus, the total amount payable on the basis of pre- amendment compensation together with interest works out to Rs.6,94,000/- (Rs.4,00,000/- + Rs.2,94,000/-). 39. Since the amount so calculated is less than the enhanced compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- prescribed under the amended Rules, the applicants are entitled to the higher amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in terms of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Radha Yadav (supra) . Accordingly, the compensation payable to the applicants is determined at Rs.8,00,000/-. IX. CONCLUSION: 40. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered view that mere absence of a journey ticket on the person of the deceased would not negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden, which rested on the applicants, stood duly discharged through the consistent oral evidence of AW1 coupled with the contemporaneous documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A3. Upon such discharge, the burden shifted to the respondent Railways, which has failed to rebut the same by any reliable evidence. 41. The initial burden, which rested on the applicants, stood duly discharged through the consistent oral evidence of AW1 coupled with the contemporaneous documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A3. Upon such discharge, the burden shifted to the respondent Railways, which has failed to rebut the same by any reliable evidence. 41. It is a settled principle of law that where two interpretations are reasonably possible, the interpretation which advances the object of a beneficial legislation must be preferred. The Railway Claims Tribunal Act and Section 124-A of the Railways Act are intended to provide social security and compensation to victims of railway accidents and their dependants. The Honourable Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 , has reiterated that provisions relating to compensation under the Railways Act must receive a liberal and purposive construction in favour of claimants. 42. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions and having regard to the evidence on record, this Court holds that the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, without proper appreciation of the facts, evidence, and settled legal position, erred in dismissing the claim application. The impugned findings are  therefore liable to be set aside, and the applicants are held entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. IX. RESULT: ?43. In the result: (i) the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, in O.A. II (U) No.175 of 2015 is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, the applicants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only). (iv) The respondent Railways are directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount before the Railway Claims Tribunal within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (v) On such deposit, the applicants shall be entitled to equal shares. Applicant No.1 shall be permitted to withdraw her share of the compensation amount without furnishing any security. (vi) The shares of applicant Nos.2 to 4, who were minors at the time of filing of the application, shall be deposited in any nationalized bank in fixed deposits till they attain the age of majority. Applicant No.1 shall be permitted to withdraw her share of the compensation amount without furnishing any security. (vi) The shares of applicant Nos.2 to 4, who were minors at the time of filing of the application, shall be deposited in any nationalized bank in fixed deposits till they attain the age of majority. (vii) Applicant No.1, being the natural guardian of applicant Nos.2 to 4, is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon once in six months for the maintenance, education and welfare of the minor applicants. (viii) There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.