JUDGMENT : 1. First Appeal has been preferred by the original Claimants challenging the dismissal of their application for compensation by the Railway Claims Tribunal vide judgment dated 9 th April, 2009. 2. The claim was filed seeking compensation for loss occasioned due to death of their son in an incident alleged to be an untoward incident on 22 nd November, 2024. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim application on both counts of the deceased not being a bona fide passenger and that the death was not a result of untoward incident. 3. The Application came to be filed by Appellants pleading that the deceased had accidentally fallen down from an unknown local train near Lower Parel Railway Station on 12 th November 2004 and died on 22 nd November 2004 at Nair Hospital and that he had fallen due to excessive rush in local train. It was pleaded that he was holding a valid second class return ticket issued at Dadar Railway station which was lost in the untoward incident which ticket was purchased by the brother of deceased–Sugriv. Along with the Application, copy of post mortem report, panchnama, police report etc., were produced. 4. The Railways resisted the claim contending that deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It was further contended that the deceased while travelling on the footboard and while leaning outside was hit by a pole. As a result, the deceased got injured and fell inside the luggage compartment of local train during non peak hours and thereafter expired. It was contended that untoward incident had occurred due to careless and negligent travelling by deceased on the footboard of local train which is a self-inflicted injury. Along with the written statement, Railways produced DRM’s report which concluded that the death had occurred due to careless and negligent travelling. 5. The Claimants examined the father of deceased as AW-1 and elder brother–Sugriv as AW-2. It was deposed by AW-1 that he was informed by his son Sugriv that the deceased had fallen down from a local train and that on 12 th November 2004 his son Sugriv had purchased the second class railway return ticket from Dadar which was handed over to the deceased for his journey. He further deposed that ticket must have been lost. He further deposed that ticket must have been lost. He further claimed that Railways have falsely alleged that it is a case of hit by railway pole and the averments are false, baseless and not supported by any other document. 6. AW-2 who is brother of deceased has deposed that on 12 th November 2004 at about 12.00 hours in the afternoon he had accompanied his brother upto Dadar Railway station and had purchased for him a valid second class railway return ticket and handed over the same to the deceased which was kept by deceased in his shirt pocket in his presence. He has deposed that said ticket was not found on the body of deceased and after the accident it must have got lost owing to deceased’s fall from local train. He has deposed that when the deceased did not return back on that day, he started searching him with his relatives but the deceased was not found anywhere and on 14 th November 2004 he came to know from Mumbai Central Railway station that one boy had fallen down from local train on 12 th November 2004 and admitted to Nair Hospital. He has deposed that he had gone to Nair hospital and police as well as his brother had informed him that he had fallen down from the local train. He has deposed that his brother had expired on 22 nd November 2004 while undergoing treatment and that the Railway police had found cash worth Rs.100/- and clothes which were handed over to him by police. He has further deposed that police have falsely written that his brother was hit by a railway pole and that he never told the police that his brother was hit by a railway pole. 7. In the cross-examination he has maintained that the deceased was having a valid local train ticket which he himself had purchased and given to him which was lost in the incident. He has maintained that he had purchased return ticket from Dadar to Mumbai Central and back and given it to the deceased and it was a card ticket and thereafter he has volunteered that ticket was taken out from a machine. He has denied the suggestion that he is making false statement regarding ticket. 8. The Railways in support of their case examined Station Master and Guard of concerned local train. He has denied the suggestion that he is making false statement regarding ticket. 8. The Railways in support of their case examined Station Master and Guard of concerned local train. The Station-Master had deposed that on 12 th November 2004 at about 14.12 hours while he was on duty at Lower Parel Station, guard gave a signal by hooter and immediately the station master along with Station Hamal, GRP and Station Porter rushed towards the guard of said train who informed them that one unknown male who was travelling in local got injured as he was leaning outside train and was injured by overhead equipment and fell inside the luggage compartment. He has deposed that immediately the injured was removed from the luggage compartment and shifted to Nair Hospital. 9. DW-2 has deposed that he was on duty as guard on 12 th November 2004 and he saw one unknown person being dashed by pole when he was leaning outside the train and that the said injured person fell inside luggage compartment of local train. He further deposed that he informed and handed over the injured person to the on-duty station superintendent. From the record it is not discerned whether the defence witnesses were cross examined by the Appellants. 10. On the issue of bona fide passenger, the Trial Court held that there was no ticket or pass recovered from the deceased and that brother Sugriv had not mentioned about any ticket in his police statement recorded on 22 nd November 2004. The Trial Court held that the deceased was found in luggage compartment, but it is not case of Sugriv that a luggage ticket was purchased. The Trial Court held that brother was an interested party to the claim and the Claimants have not proved that deceased had a valid ticket and was a bona fide passenger. 11. On the aspect of death being caused by untoward incident, the Trial Court held that the incident had taken place during the non peak hours and as the deceased was hit by railway pole, he must be dangerously leaning out of the couch which is self-inflicted injury. The Trial Court further held that since the deceased had fallen inside the compartment and not fallen from the train, the case is not an untoward incident. 12. The Trial Court further held that since the deceased had fallen inside the compartment and not fallen from the train, the case is not an untoward incident. 12. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has taken this Court through various documents and would submit that the inquest report, police report and DRM’s report would indicate that it is an admitted position that the deceased was travelling by train. He would further submit that police statement of the brother of deceased specifically recorded that deceased was hit by railway pole and was admitted to Nair Hospital for treatment and had expired during treatment. He submits that in the cross-examination, the testimony of brother has not been shaken that he had purchased the railway ticket and handed over the same to the deceased and as such the Claimants have discharged their initial burden. 13. As regards untoward incident, he submits that even if it is accepted that deceased was hit by a railway pole, in the case of Sahadeo Sindhu Sana v. Union of India [FA 35 of 2005, decided on 4 th January 2010] , learned Single Judge of this Court, in identical facts where the deceased had fallen inside the train had held that the actual falling need not be outside the train and that wording of Section 123(c) (2) of the Railway Act does not require that deceased should fall outside the train. He submits that in that case, the Court had awarded compensation by restricting the payment of interest from the date of order till the date of actual payment @ 9% p.a.. He would further submit that in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi [(2019) 3 SCC 572] the Apex Court has held that the concept of self-inflicted injury would require the intention to inflict such injury and not merely negligence of particular degree. He submits that in the present case even if the deceased was hit by a pole, it cannot be said that injury was a self-inflicted injury so as to deny the compensation. 14. Per contra learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent – Railways would submit that the injury would be a self-inflicted injury as the document would show that the deceased was leaning out of the running train at a time when it is well known that the trains are not crowded and therefore Railways cannot be held liable. 14. Per contra learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent – Railways would submit that the injury would be a self-inflicted injury as the document would show that the deceased was leaning out of the running train at a time when it is well known that the trains are not crowded and therefore Railways cannot be held liable. He submits that in order to be considered bona fide passenger, it has to be shown that the deceased had purchased a valid luggage ticket as he was travelling in luggage compartment and there is no evidence to show that he had purchased luggage compartment ticket. He submits that in his police statement, the brother of deceased has not made mention of any ticket. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment where the trial Court has held that the statement of brother cannot be accepted as he was interested party to the claim. He submits that the affidavit of evidence has been filed in the year 2007 where he has stated that he had purchased ticket whereas in a police statement recorded in the year 2004, the brother has not made mention that he had purchased any ticket. He would further point out that as the deceased was hit by a pole, the same would not constitute an untoward incident and therefore there is no liability to pay compensation. 15. The following point would arise for determination : (1) Whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim for compensation on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death had not occasioned due to untoward incident ? As to Point No.(1) : 16. Firstly dealing with the issue as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the deceased was found injured in the luggage compartment and the police report dated 12 th November 2004 records that on taking inspection of the body of injured in his pant behind pockets, leather purse was found in which cash worth Rs.100/- was there and no other article was found. In the statement given to police by the brother of deceased on 22 nd November 2004, he has stated that on 12 th November 2004, at about 12.00 hours, his brother had gone to Tardeo for the purpose of their work and when he did not come back, he enquired with the relatives about his brother. He has stated that while making inquiry with Mumbai Central Railway Police, on 14 th November 2004, at the Police Station, he was informed that an accident had taken place and that on personally seeing him, he has stated that the injured was his brother and on 12 th November 2004 while returning from Tardeo he was hit by a railway pole and while undergoing treatment he expired on 22 nd November 2004 and that he had received Rs.100/- cash and clothes. 17. The brother of deceased was examined as AW-2. In his a of evidence, he has deposed that he and his brother both worked at Florence Flora Flower shop at Dadar, Mumbai. He deposed that on 12 th November 2004, he had sent his brother to Tardeo for delivering flowers and as there were lot of flowers, he had accompanied his brother upto Dadar Railway Station and he himself purchased for him a valid second railway return ticket and handed over the same to deceased which he had kept in his shirt pocket in his presence. He has deposed that the ticket must have got lost owing to his fall from train. 18. In the cross examination, the testimony of AW-2 is not shaken as regards the purchase of return ticket. He has stood by his testimony that he had purchased return ticket from Dadar to Mumbai Central and given it to the deceased. There is no cross-examination to show that the ticket purchased by deceased’s brother was not valid for travelling in the luggage compartment. 19. The statement given to the police was recorded on 22 nd November 2004, upon death of the deceased. The omission to mention about purchase of ticket in the police statement is not fatal as the statement was recorded after almost 10 days of the incident and the brother of deceased may not have considered it important enough to record the said fact. The omission to mention about purchase of ticket in the police statement is not fatal as the statement was recorded after almost 10 days of the incident and the brother of deceased may not have considered it important enough to record the said fact. The investigation happened upon the death of deceased and the incident resulting in the death was more significant to be recorded than the purchase of ticket. 20. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra) has held that mere absence of a ticket will not negative the claim that deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the initial burden will be on the Claimants which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts in which case the burden will shift upon the Railways. In the present case, AW-2 has deposed as to the relevant facts and thus discharged the initial burden and the onus thus shifted on Railways. The Respondent Railways have not led any evidence and even in the cross-examination has failed to put up a case that the deceased was required to purchase a luggage ticket for travelling in luggage compartment. 21. The Claimants having discharged their initial burden, the deceased is held to be a bona fide passenger. The issue as regards the bona fide passenger is accordingly answered in favour of the Claimants. 22. As to whether the death was caused by an untoward incident, the police report clearly mentions that at about 14.30 hours, the station superintendent had called and informed him that one unknown person was injured in down local train and he had been shifted to Nair hospital Ward No.28. Railways have further examined the station superintendent and the guard who have deposed that deceased was leaning outside the train and was hit by a railway pole and was found in the luggage compartment. From the evidence on record it is clear that the deceased was lying injured in a luggage compartment and was thereafter shifted to Nair hospital. 23. The Tribunal has held that the incident is not an untoward incident firstly as the deceased was leaning dangerously out of the train, which act can be termed as self-inflicted injury and secondly that he fell inside the train and not fallen from the train. 24. 23. The Tribunal has held that the incident is not an untoward incident firstly as the deceased was leaning dangerously out of the train, which act can be termed as self-inflicted injury and secondly that he fell inside the train and not fallen from the train. 24. It is admitted position that the deceased has fallen inside the compartment after being hit by a pole. Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act defines “an untoward incident” as accidental falling from a train. The issue came for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Sahadeo Sindhu Sanas vs Union of India in First Appeal No 35 of 2005. The Learned Single Judge in identical facts where the deceased was hit by a pole and fell inside the compartment, held vide judgment dated 4 th January, 2010 that though the wordings of Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act speaks of accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers, the actual falling need not be outside the train. 25. As far as the finding of the Trial Court that the deceased must be dangerously leaning out of the couch to be hit by a pole and the same is a self-inflicted injury is concerned, the Apex Court in Union of India vs Rina Devi (supra) has held that the concept of self inflicted injury would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. The Respondent claims that leaning out of the train amounts to self-inflicted injury. Firstly, there is no evidence on record to demonstrate that at 14.15 hours in the luggage compartment, there was no rush and there was ample space for the deceased to be standing or seated well inside the compartment. Secondly, the deceased was aged 16 years of age at the time of accident and even if he was leaning out the train, the act can be termed as negligent but not self inflicted injury. Considering the age of deceased, he may not be fully aware of the consequences of his act and there was definitely no intention to inflict the injury. The deceased being hit by a pole and falling inside the compartment is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act for which the Respondent is liable to pay no fault liability compensation under Section 124-A of Railways Act. The deceased being hit by a pole and falling inside the compartment is an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act for which the Respondent is liable to pay no fault liability compensation under Section 124-A of Railways Act. Point No (i) is accordingly answered in favour of the Claimants. 26. As per the decision in case of Union of India vs Rina Devi (supra), the liability to pay compensation accrues on the date of accident and amount applicable as on that date will be the amount recoverable along with interest from date of accident till payment. If the revised amount of applicable compensation as on the date of award is less than the prescribed amount of compensation as on date of accident with interest, the higher of the two amounts ought to be awarded. 27. Hence the following order is passed. : ORDER : (a) First Appeal is allowed. (b) The impugned judgment dated 9th April, 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. (c) The Claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- each along with interest @ 6% p.a. from date of accident i.e. 12th November, 2004 till payment or Rs. 8,00,000/-, whichever is higher. (d) The compensation to be paid by Respondent-Railways within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the Claimants furnishing their bank account details to the concerned department. (e) Decree be drawn up accordingly.