JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. J. Mollah for the appellants and learned counsel Mr. H. P. Gowala on behalf of learned Standing Counsel Mr. B. K. Das for NF Railway. 2. The gist of the case is that on 21.02.2016 the appellant’s father late Abdul Sattar was travelling from Badulipar Halt to Jorhat Railway Station with valid railway journey ticket by up Intercity Express. During the course of his journey, unfortunately Abdul Sattar accidently fell down from the running train at platform No.1 Barua Bamun Gaon Railway Station. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Community Health Centre Dergaon with the help of an ambulance (108). Later on he was shifted to Jorhat Medical Hospital but finally he was shifted to Assam Medical College Hospital for better treatment but, unfortunately he succumbed to his injuries on 28.02.2016. 3. In this regard Furkatting GRP OP GD entry no. 317 dated 21.02.2016 was registered. The appellants filed claim application no. O.A.II U-72/2018 under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 124/124 A of Indian Railways Act, 1989 on account of death of late Abdul Sattar, but unfortunately after hearing both the parties the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2019. Aggrieved by the judgment and order the appellants are before this Court. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that issue no. 2 was erroneously decided and is bad in law as wrong provision of law was applied. It is submitted that the correct definition is under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that GD entry was registered and has decided this case against the claimants. As per the definition of section 123(c) of the Railways Act, it was an untoward incident and claimants are entitled to compensation under section 124 (A) of the Railways Act. The Annexure-1 of the petition clearly reflects that “one unknown male person, aged about 55 years, fell down from 15717 Up running Intercity Express train at 22.03 hrs. of Platform No-01. Call for 108 and admit to Dergaon Hospital. Thereafter, the FKG GRP OP- GD entry No. 317 dated 21.02.2016 at 10.40 PM was registered”. 5. The Annexure-1 of the petition clearly reflects that “one unknown male person, aged about 55 years, fell down from 15717 Up running Intercity Express train at 22.03 hrs. of Platform No-01. Call for 108 and admit to Dergaon Hospital. Thereafter, the FKG GRP OP- GD entry No. 317 dated 21.02.2016 at 10.40 PM was registered”. 5. The deceased was forwarded for treatment and a copy of the requisition is marked as Annexure-2 of the petition. The deceased was forwarded by the In- Charge of Furkatting GRP/OP to the C.H.C. Dergaon. Thus, no further police report is required to ascertain the untoward incident and this cannot be considered to be a case with malafide to extract Government money by way of compensation. The Annexure-5 series is the police report and translated copy of the GD entry and the Annexure-4 is the journey ticket. 6. It is submitted that the minor children are dependents and they are suffering immensely. This is a beneficial legislation and it has to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. It was successfully proved but the learned Tribunal erroneously ignored the submissions on behalf of the claimants. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Railways laid stress in his argument that the impugned judgment and order warrants no interference as there is no infirmity in the judgment and order of the Railway Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. It is submitted that a copy of the ticket was furnished. As the ticket was not produced initially, the case is without a basic foundation. 8. Now the point for determination is that whether the Railway Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim. 9. In this case, at hand both the appellants were represented by their aunt, as their mother had earlier passed away. The minor appellants are the children of the deceased and their aunt is the sister-in-law i.e. sister of their mother, Smt. Mosliha Begum. Aunt of the claimants has adduced her evidence and has stated that the wife of the deceased Mosfika Begum died in the year 2008 and the children of the deceased are residing with her and she has no adverse interest against the minor children of the deceased. Aunt of the claimants has adduced her evidence and has stated that the wife of the deceased Mosfika Begum died in the year 2008 and the children of the deceased are residing with her and she has no adverse interest against the minor children of the deceased. The elder daughter Miss Sahin Akhtar was 17 years and she was a student of class-12 and the younger son Asraf Tanbir who was 12 years of age was a student of class-6 at the time when their aunt deposed as AW-1. 10. In her cross-examination AW-1 has stated that she has submitted a photocopy of the journey ticket along with the original ticket. This journey ticket was handed over by the police officials who had investigated the case. She has filed the original journey ticket on the day she deposed as a witness in the tribunal but she did not know where the original journey ticket was. She has admitted that she did not file the seizure list and Zimmanama. She has also admitted in her cross- examination that the deceased was a green grocer and that she had no knowledge about the incident and she did not know by which train the deceased was traveling at the time of the accident. She has vehemently denied that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. She has produced the police report and she has exhibited the following documents:- 11. After scrutinizing the evidence of the representative of the claimants, Miss. Mosliha Begum, the Tribunal has held that the claim application was accompanied by True copy of Police report, True copy of SM memo, True copy of Ticket No. 26993 dated 21.02.2016, True copy of GRP report, True copy of Death Certificate, True copy of Birth certificates, True copy of Discharge Certificate issued by JMCH, True copy of CT scan report, True copy of laboratory certificate, True copy of Medical report, Photo copy of money receipt, Photo copy of translated copy of Ration Card, True copy of post-mortem report, True copy of HSLC certificate of Sahin Akhtar Ahmed, True copy of Govt. Gaonburah Certificate and True copy of Voter ID Card of Mosliha Begum. 12. Gaonburah Certificate and True copy of Voter ID Card of Mosliha Begum. 12. It was held by the Tribunal that earlier an application O.A.IIu-50/2016 was filed for the same cause of action by Miss Sahin Akhtar, daughter of the deceased late Abdul Sattar, which was withdrawn vide the order dated 11.06.2018 as the claimant was minor and the original application was lacking in details and documentary evidence in support of the averments. It was held by the Tribunal that the original ticket was produced by the sister-in-law of the deceased Smt. Mosliha Begum on the court when she deposed as a witness and she has stated that this original ticket was handed by the police officials. The learned Tribunal did not accept this original ticket as it was found to be doubtful more so in absence of the seizure list as a proof of seizure of the ticket as there was no endorsement or police seal etc, to substantiate the fact that the deceased was travelling by that ticket. 13. It was held by the Tribunal that in absence of any clinching evidence he was unable to hold that the ticket belongs to the victim. Further the ticket was also not accepted as no UD case was registered in connection with the incident to substantiate the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It was also held that the original ticket was not reflected in the public documents filed along with the claim application. No seizure list, inquest report, final report has been furnished along with the claim application. Even the memo reflects that “one unknown male person aged 55 years fell down from 15717 Up running Intercity Express train at 22.30 hrs. of Platform No. 1. Call for 108 and admit to Dergaon Hospital”. It was then held by the Tribunal that no proper inquiry was made regarding the injured person and so his name was not mentioned and he was referred to as an unknown male person. 14. It was further observed that there is a discrepancy regarding the age as in SM memo the age of the deceased was recorded as 55 years whereas the medical report reveals that the deceased was about 41 years and 43 years. The claim petition was also rejected as several documents according to the tribunal were photocopies and not certified copies. It was further observed that there is a discrepancy regarding the age as in SM memo the age of the deceased was recorded as 55 years whereas the medical report reveals that the deceased was about 41 years and 43 years. The claim petition was also rejected as several documents according to the tribunal were photocopies and not certified copies. Nevertheless, the tribunal has held that under section 124(A) of the Railways Act, a dependent claimant can seek compensation for the death of a deceased only on establishing that the death was due to an untoward incident. 15. In this case, the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant is relevant, as it includes that an untoward incident according to section 123 (c) includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers and as per section 123 (b) dependent also includes the claimants in the instant case. In this case, one unknown male passenger aged about 55 years fell down from Up 15717 running Intercity Express at 22.03 hours at Platform No.1. The ambulance was called and FKG GRP OP-GD entry No.317 dated 21.02.2016 was recorded. The police report reveals that during investigation it was found that the name of the injured person was Abdul Sattar, aged about 45 years, son of late Abdul Zuman of Raju Maidan and he was travelling from Badulipar Halt to Jorhat Town by 15717 UP Intercity Express train by ticket no 26993 dated 21.02.2016. This ticket has been produced and exhibited by the witness as Ext- A3 at the time when evidence was recorded by the Tribunal. This incident cannot be considered to be an act of suicide or self-inflicted injury or any act in state of intoxication or natural disease or medical cause, debarred from compensation under section 124(A). This is indeed an untoward incident and appears to be an accidental falling of the passenger from a running train as has been mentioned in the police report that the passenger fell down from the running train. The police report has mentioned the correct ticket number which has been also proved with the original ticket as Ext-A3, despite the fact that the ticket was produced at the time when the evidence of the witness was recorded. 16. The death certificate of Mosfika Begum was a photocopy. The police report has mentioned the correct ticket number which has been also proved with the original ticket as Ext-A3, despite the fact that the ticket was produced at the time when the evidence of the witness was recorded. 16. The death certificate of Mosfika Begum was a photocopy. Gaonburah Certificate marked as Ext-A11 is a true copy identifying the representative of the claimants Mosliha Begum as their aunt. The post-mortem examination was conducted on 29.02.2016. Ex-A8 is the true copy of ration card of the deceased Abdul Sattar which can be taken into consideration. The Birth Certificates of the claimants are true copies. Considering the true copy of the Police report, the certified copy of the post-mortem report, the claim petition and the evidence of the witness, it is held that the claimants who are the children of the deceased, are entitled to compensation owing to the death of their father in an accident while travelling by the Intercity Express No. 15717 Up Intercity Express Train vide ticket No. 26993 dated 21.02.2016. The true copies of the birth certificates reveals that Miss Sahin Akhtar and Asraf Tanbir are the minor children of the deceased Abdul Sattar. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 wherein it has been held that:_ “14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. Hence, in our opinion, the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression. 16. The accident in which Smt Abja died is clearly not covered by the 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 to Section 124-A. Hence, in our opinion, the present case is clearly covered by the main body of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and not its proviso. 17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault”. 18. In Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, vide order dated 09.05.2018, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4945/2018 that:- “16.1. From the judgments cited at the Bar we do not see any conflict on the applicability of the principle of strict liability. Sections 124 and Section 124A provide that compensation is payable whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of the railway administration in the case of an accident or in the case of an 'untoward incident'. Only exceptions are those provided under proviso to Section 124A. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) it was held that Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Where principle of strict liability applies, proof of negligence is not required. This principle has been reiterated in Jameela (supra)”. 19. Reverting back to the instant case, and taking into consideration the forgoing discussions, it is held that the claimants could prove that the deceased died as a result of an untoward accident. He fell down from the running train while he was travelling in UP, Intercity Express with a ticket No. 26993 on 21.02.2016. It is also held that the claimants are the dependents of the deceased Abdul Sattar. He fell down from the running train while he was travelling in UP, Intercity Express with a ticket No. 26993 on 21.02.2016. It is also held that the claimants are the dependents of the deceased Abdul Sattar. The claimants were minors at the time of the accident, and by now, the claimant No. 1 has attained majority, and the claimant No. 2 may have also attained majority. 20. The documents submitted by the claimants are sufficient to prove that the claimants have been orphaned by the death of their father. No allegations were raised that the deceased died as a result of negligence or self-inflicted injury, or even any medical condition. Except denying the validity of the train ticket, and relying on the forwarding of the injured victim as an unnamed person, no grounds have been raised to reject the claim of the claimants. Indeed, the respondents have disputed the identity of the claimants, as well as their representative, but this has been refuted by the claimants through proper documentary as well as oral evidence. 21. It has also been held by the Apex Court in Rina Devi (Supra) that:- “15.4. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon (supra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) stands explained accordingly. The 4-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given.” 22. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given.” 22. Thereby, in view of the foregoing discussions, the decision of the learned Tribunal dated 23.09.2019, in connection with O.AIIu-72/2018, is set aside, and the respondents authorities are directed to pay a compensation of rupees 4,00,000/ lakhs, to the claimants, with interest @ 6% from the date of application till the date of award and 9%, thereafter. 23. Appeal is allowed, no order as to costs. 24. Send back the original record of the Tribunal.