JUDGMENT : G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J. The present appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.01.2019 passed in O.A.II(U).No.442 of 2014, on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder, the application filed by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest from the Respondent-Railways, was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Heard Smt. Geetha Madhuri N.S, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants and Sri Sanjeev Reddy Gillella, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government and perused the record. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the deceased was working as a catering supplier. On 22.05.2014, intending to attend a function at Nekkonda, the deceased along with eight co-workers, purchased three journey tickets for nine persons and two tickets for four persons each and one ticket for a single adult and boarded Train No.67272/67270 (Vijayawada–Dornakal–Kazipet Passenger). During the journey, the deceased inadvertently alighted at Intekanne Railway Station under the mistaken impression that it was Nekkonda. On realising the error, the deceased attempted to re- board the same train; however, due to heavy passenger rush, he slipped and accidentally fell from the moving train between the platform and the train at KM No.415/27–25 at Intekanne Railway Station. 5. The deceased had sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. As the applicants are dependants of the deceased, they filed an application under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest from the Respondent-Railways. 6. The respondents in their written statement before the Tribunal, contended that there is no evidence identifying the train on which the deceased travelled, except the statements of his friends, who are interested witnesses. Relying on the DRM report, it was noted that the body was found on Platform No.2 and no official record corroborates a fall from the train. The Guard’s statement indicated that the train arrived at Nekkonda at 22:45, whereas the body was discovered much later, raising serious doubt about the alleged incident. It was further argued that the death resulted from the deceased’s own negligent and reckless act, falling within the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and prayed for dismissal of the claim. 7. It was further argued that the death resulted from the deceased’s own negligent and reckless act, falling within the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and prayed for dismissal of the claim. 7. On behalf of the applicants, AW.1 and AW.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 are marked on their behalf. On behalf of respondent, none of the witnesses were examined. However, Report of Divisional Railway Manager was marked on their behalf. 8. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and documents available on record, dismissed the claim application of the applicants. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/applicants. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has contented as follows: i. That the deceased was a bona fide passenger, holding a valid journey ticket (Ex.A1.) The status of the deceased as such, is further corroborated by the fact that he was travelling along with a group and that multiple tickets had been purchased for the journey. ii. That the death of the deceased occurred as a result of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, namely, an accidental fall of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. According to the appellants, the incident was purely accidental and not the result of any intentional or prohibited act. iii. That the Tribunal erred in mechanically applying the ratio of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Union of India represented by its General Manger, South Western Railway, Hubli v. Smt. Lakshmi , M.F.A.NO.8501/2009 (RCT) A/W MISC.CVL.22452/2009 dated 03.04.2013 , despite the facts being clearly distinguishable. The said case involved a deliberate attempt to board a train after it had gathered considerable speed. In contrast, in the present case, the deceased was a bona fide passenger who, having mistakenly alighted at a station, attempted to re-board the same train from the platform and accidentally fell due to rush and crowd, without any element of recklessness or wilful risk-taking. iv. That the mere circumstance of boarding a train which had begun to move does not, by itself, render the act criminal or suicidal so as to attract the exceptions under Section 124-A of the Act. v. That the Tribunal laid undue emphasis on the alleged absence of an immediate complaint to the railway authorities. iv. That the mere circumstance of boarding a train which had begun to move does not, by itself, render the act criminal or suicidal so as to attract the exceptions under Section 124-A of the Act. v. That the Tribunal laid undue emphasis on the alleged absence of an immediate complaint to the railway authorities. It was pointed out that AW.2 had categorically stated in his cross- examination that a complaint was made at Nekkonda Railway Station. Any procedural lapse, if at all, was attributable to the panic, trauma and financial distress suffered by the appellants, who hail from a rural background. vi. That the appellants had produced cogent and overwhelming documentary evidence, including the FIR (Ex.A2), Inquest Report (Ex.A3), Post-mortem Report (Ex.A4), and Aadhaar cards (Exs.A8 to A11), which conclusively establish the identity of the deceased, the factum of death in a railway accident, and the dependency of the claimants. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent supported the findings of the Tribunal and has contended as follows: i. That the entire case of the appellants rests primarily on the testimony of AW.2, who is an interested witness. The AW.2’s categorical admission that the deceased fell down while attempting to board a running train, according to the respondent, is fatal to the claim, as such conduct amounts to gross negligence and rashness, taking the incident outside the scope of an “untoward incident” under the Act. ii. That the conduct of the alleged co-passengers is highly suspicious, inasmuch as none of them pulled the alarm chain or lodged any immediate complaint with the railway police either at the destination station or at the next station, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the appellants’ version. iii. That the Divisional Railway Manager’s Report (Ex.R1) indicates that the dead body was found on Platform No.2 at Intekanne Railway Station and that there was no record of the deceased having travelled on the alleged train. The time and place of discovery of the body, it was argued, are inconsistent with the narrative put forth by the appellants. iv. iii. That the Divisional Railway Manager’s Report (Ex.R1) indicates that the dead body was found on Platform No.2 at Intekanne Railway Station and that there was no record of the deceased having travelled on the alleged train. The time and place of discovery of the body, it was argued, are inconsistent with the narrative put forth by the appellants. iv. That the decision relied upon by the Tribunal in Smt. Lakshmi (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case, as attempting to board a moving train is an inherently dangerous act, and any injury or death resulting therefrom is a direct consequence of the passenger’s own imprudence, falling within the exceptions carved out under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. v. That the appellants failed to discharge their initial burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died as a result of an untoward incident, and that the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal warrants no interference. 12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 13. It is pertinent to note that in the present case the claimants placed reliance on Ex.A1, the journey tickets issued for a group of nine persons, including the deceased, for travel from Khammam to Nekkonda on the relevant date. Ex.A1 constitutes cogent documentary evidence of lawful travel, and the Tribunal did not record any specific finding disbelieving its genuineness or evidentiary value. Further, the proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal are governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities. When Ex.A1 is considered along with the oral evidence of AW.2, the version that the deceased was travelling under a valid ticket appears natural and probable. 14. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the Railways disputing the ticket or establishing that the deceased was an unauthorized traveller, the initial burden stands duly discharged. Therefore, the deceased is held to be a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the Railways Act. 15. It is to be noted that the Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act expressly includes the accidental fall of a passenger from a train within the definition of an “untoward incident.” Under Section 124-A, the liability of the Railway Administration is strict, subject only to the limited exceptions in the proviso, including suicide or self- inflicted injury. The issue is no longer res integra. In Jameela & Ors. The issue is no longer res integra. In Jameela & Ors. v. Union of India , (2010) 12 SCC 443 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere negligence or imprudence of a passenger does not constitute self- inflicted injury, and that the proviso to Section 124-A is attracted only where intention to cause injury or commit suicide is established. In this regard, the Tribunal’s reliance on Smt. Lakshmi (supra 1) is misplaced, as that decision turned on a distinct factual scenario where the train had gained substantial momentum. 16. On perusal of the material on record it is noted that the AW.2 consistently deposed that the deceased, having mistakenly alighted from the train, attempted to re-board it when it had just started moving and, due to rush and jostling in the general compartment, accidentally fell down. There is no oral or documentary evidence to suggest any intention on the part of the deceased to cause self-harm or commit suicide. The incident occurred in the course of a lawful journey and was an unfortunate accident arising from ordinary human error. Characterising such conduct as “self-inflicted injury” would amount to imputing and ascribing motives without any evidentiary basis. Further, Ex.R1 (DRM report) merely records the absence of railway records and does not dislodge the eyewitness account or the documentary evidence relied upon by the claimants, particularly in the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the Railways. 17. It is also to be noted that once the claimants establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that death occurred in the course of the journey, the statutory burden under Section 124-A shifts upon the Railway Administration to prove that the case falls under one of the exceptions. The respondent-Railways, having failed to discharge this burden, cannot seek denial of compensation on conjectures or surmises. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India , (2024) 9 SCC 656 has held as under: 13. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In Rina Devi (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. In Rina Devi (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger….. 19. Further the adverse inference drawn by the Tribunal on the ground of non-lodging of an immediate complaint is legally unsustainable. AW.2 specifically denied the suggestion that no complaint was made. Even otherwise, in the aftermath of a fatal accident, particularly involving co-workers from a rural background- shock, confusion, and lack of legal awareness are plausible explanations. Therefore, the procedural lapses of this nature cannot outweigh substantive evidence. 20. It is pertinent to note that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who has mistakenly alighted at a station, attempted to re- board the same train from the platform and accidentally fell due to rush and crowd without any element of recklessness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 has held as under: 26.…This view has led to an inference that any person dead or injured found on the railway premises has to be presumed to be a bona fide passenger so as to maintain a claim for compensation.…. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi ’s case (supra) authoritatively settled the principles governing determination of compensation under Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act. It has been categorically held that the right to receive compensation accrues and vests in the dependants on the date of the accident, and accordingly, the quantum of compensation is to be computed with reference to the rate applicable on the date of the accident. It has been categorically held that the right to receive compensation accrues and vests in the dependants on the date of the accident, and accordingly, the quantum of compensation is to be computed with reference to the rate applicable on the date of the accident. The Apex Court further clarified that in cases where the accident occurred prior to the amendment of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016, the claimant would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts, namely: (i) the compensation payable as per the schedule applicable on the date of the accident together with reasonable interest; or (ii) the compensation prescribed under the amended rules as on the date of adjudication. This principle has been evolved keeping in view the beneficial nature of the legislation. 22. It has also been reiterated in Rina Devi ’s case (supra) that the liability of the Railway Administration under Section 124-A is one of strict liability, and compensation is payable irrespective of any wrongful act, negligence, or fault on the part of the passenger, unless the case squarely falls within the narrowly construed exceptions such as suicide or self-inflicted injury. Therefore, mere negligence or imprudence does not attract the proviso to Section 124-A. The relevant paras are extracted hereunder for ready reference: 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). 16.2 Coming to the proviso to Section 124A to the effect that no compensation is payable if passenger dies or suffers injury due to the situations mentioned therein, there is no difficulty as regards suicide or attempted suicide in which case no compensation may be payable. Conflict of opinions in High Courts has arisen on understanding the expression ‘self inflicted injury’ in the proviso. Conflict of opinions in High Courts has arisen on understanding the expression ‘self inflicted injury’ in the proviso. In some decisions it has been held that injury or death because of negligence of the victim was at par with self inflicted injury. We may refer to the decisions of High Courts of Kerala in Joseph PT (supra), Bombay in Pushpa (supra) and Delhi in Shayam Narayan (supra) on this point. 23. In regard to interest, Rina Devi ’s case (supra) held that since the liability arises on the date of the accident itself, interest is ordinarily payable from the date of the accident till the date of payment, and the rate of interest should be reasonable and comparable to awards made in motor accident claims. The relevant para is extracted hereunder for ready reference: 18. …..We are of the view that in absence of any specific statutory provision, interest can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railways arises upto the date of payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal position in this regard is at par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in this manner. 24. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the accident having occurred on 22.05.2014, the appellants are entitled to compensation determined under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents Compensation Rules, 1990 (for short, 1990 Rules) i.e., the pre-2017 regime with interest, subject to the rule of awarding the higher of the two amounts. The award of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest, as payable under the 1990 Rules as amended by the 2016 amendment thereto (w.e.f. 1 st January, 2017) will be in strict conformity with the law laid down in Rina Devi ’s case (supra). Conclusion 25. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the death of the deceased resulted from an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and does not fall under any of the exceptions to Section 124-A. The order dated 02.01.2019 passed in O.A. II (u) No.442 of 2014 by the Tribunal being perverse and unsustainable is hereby set aside, warranting interference by this Court. 26. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. 27. 26. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. 27. The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) to the appellants, together with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e., 22.12.2014, till the date of realization. The said amount shall be deposited before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellants shall be entitled to withdraw the same in equal shares, in accordance with law. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.