JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the sole-respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed challenging the validity and legality of the judgment dated 23.08.2013, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, in Case No. TAU/RNC/2005/2017, whereby and whereunder the claim was decreed to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-, out of which, Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be paid to Divynashu Gupta, as he is in custody of the applicant Sanjay Kumar Gupta and the rest amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- may be kept in the fixed deposit for five years on monthly interest scheme for taking care of the monthly expenses of the applicant/respondent.

3. The claim application was originally filed by Anjali Gupta, wife of Vijay Kumar Gupta (deceased). Subsequently, by way of amendment petition and in view of the fact that said Anjali Gupta was no longer interest in claim, the said claim was given to her brother-in-law (Sanjay Kumar Gupta) and her son Divyanshu Gupta, as the said Anjali Gupta remarried and her daughter is in her custody and her son Divyanshu Gupta is in the care of Sanjay Kumar Gupta (her elder brother-in-law). It was averred in the claim that deceased Vijay Kumar Gupta, was travelling by Utkal Express (Train No. 8477 UP) on 12.09.2004 from Tata Nagar to Rourkela and he fell down from the running train at Sini Station between PF-2 and Pole No. 276/11A and was cut into two pieces and died at the spot.

4. In view of the above background, the claim petition was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, which was awarded in favour of the sole respondent by the judgment and award dated 23.08.2013, which has been challenged in this appeal by the appellant-Railway.

5. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has not appreciated the entire facts as well as the documents in right direction and the respondent has not been able to prove the case as he was not a bona fide passenger in the train in question. He submits that the burden lies on the claimant to prove the incident and once that is proved, then the onus lies upon the Railway to prove the case. He submits that Section 123 of the Railway Act, 1989 speaks of definition and subsequently Section 124 was amended and Section 124(A) has been inserted, wherein the conditions have been laid down by way of proviso, the compensation has been dealt with and the same shall be payable if passenger dies or suffers injury due to reasons assigned in Section 124 of the said Act. He further submits that the case of the appellant is coming under the proviso of Section 124(A) of the said Act and that’s why, he is not liable for the claim, as awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant to buttress his submission has relied in the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi, reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras- 15, 15.4, 17.1 and 17.2 held as follows:-

“15. We now proceed to deal with the following issues seriatim:-

(i) Whether the quantum of compensation should be as per the prescribed rate of compensation as on the date of application/incident or on the date of order awarding compensation;

(ii) Whether principle of strict liability applies;

(iii) Whether presence of a body near the railway track is enough to maintain a claim.

(iv) Rate of interest.

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 cond