JUDGMENT : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. 1) The present first appeal has been filed u/s. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 24/9/2019, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai IInd Bench, Mumbai (for short ‘the Tribunal’), dismissing the Claim Application No.OA (IIU) MCC/2015/0380. 2) The appellant had filed Claim Application before the Tribunal claiming compensation on account of death of her son - Mahadev Udhav Gaikwad, who died in the untoward incident on 30/8/2014. The Tribunal dismissed the Claim Application No.OA (IIU) MCC/2015/0380, on 24/9/2019. Hence, the appellant is challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal by way of first appeal before this Court. 3) The appellant’s case is that on 26/8/2014, the deceased Mahadev Udhav Gaikwad was traveling from Mankhurd Railway Station to Kurla Railway Station, when he accidentally fell down between Mankhurd and Govandi railway stations from the running local train due to which he sustained head injuries. He was taken to the Shatabdi Hospital by public, where on duty doctor examined him and directed to shift him to the Sion Hospital for better treatment. He was shifted to the Sion Hospital. However on 30/8/2014, while he was under treatment, he died. 4) The appellant as depandant, thereafter, filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- before the Tribunal, on account of the death caused to Mahadev Udhav Gaikwad in the ‘untoward incident’ along with interest at 18% p.a. 5) The Respondent – Railway contested the said application by filing their written statement and raised an objection on the basis of D. R. M Report. However, they admitted that the deceased accidentally fell down from the running local train. 6) After the issues were framed, the appellant filed her affidavit dated 9/7/2019 and in her deposition, she narrated the facts as stated by her in her claim. She also mentioned there that her deceased son was a bonafide passenger holding a railway ticket which is lost in the accident. On behalf of the railway, they did not examine any witness, hence the evidence was closed. 7) The Tribunal, thereafter, heard learned counsel for the parties and answered Issue No. 2 – whether the deceased suffering injuries and died in an “untoward incident” in favour of the appellant. On behalf of the railway, they did not examine any witness, hence the evidence was closed. 7) The Tribunal, thereafter, heard learned counsel for the parties and answered Issue No. 2 – whether the deceased suffering injuries and died in an “untoward incident” in favour of the appellant. So also, the Issue No. 3 - whether the railway is protected under the exceptional clause of Section 124(A) of the Railways Act and was not liable to pay compensation, was answered again in favour of the appellant. Further, Issue No. 4 – whether the applicant is the only dependant of the deceased, was answered in favour of appellant. However, the Tribunal held the Issue No. 1 - about deceased being a “bonafide passenger” of the train in question at the time of the accident against the appellant, on the reasoning that in the inquest panchanama, a railway ticket was not found, therefore, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as termed under Railways Act. 8) Hence, being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, present first appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the findings answered of Issue No. 1. 9) Following points arise for determination which are as follows:- (a) Whether interference is required in the impugned judgment and order dated 24/9/2019 passed by the Tribunal ? (b) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the time of the incident ? (c) Whether the death of the deceased was occurred as a result of an “untoward incident” ? (d) Whether any compensation is payable to the appellant being the dependent of the deceased ? And interest (if any) payable. 10) I have heard learned counsel of both sides and with their help I have gone through the documents on record. POINT – (b):- Bonafide Passenger: - 11) Section 124-A of the Railways Act reads as under:- 124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. And interest (if any) payable. 10) I have heard learned counsel of both sides and with their help I have gone through the documents on record. POINT – (b):- Bonafide Passenger: - 11) Section 124-A of the Railways Act reads as under:- 124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to- (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act ; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity, (e) any natural cause or disease of medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "passenger" includes (i) a railway servant on duty, and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.] 12) Section 2(29) defines “passengers” as follows :- Section 2(29) “passenger” means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket.” 13) The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 held in paragraph 29 it was held that mere absence of ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, the victim’s legal heirs can discharge the burden of bonafide passenger by filing their requisite affidavit where they will give details of the fact that the victim had purchased railway ticket and hence, he was the bonafide passenger at the time of the accident had occurred. Paragraphs 19, 25, 29 and 30 read as under:- 19. 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 and Kalandi Charan Sahoo stands explained accordingly. The four-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo 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. 25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of "self- inflicted injury" would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence b of any particular degree, Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on "no fault theory". We may in this connection refer to the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on "no fault theory" under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold c that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an "untoward incident" entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor. 29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. 29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly. 30. As already observed, though this Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabils held that rate of interest has to be 6% from the date of application till the date of the award and 9% thereafter and 9% rate of interest was awarded from the date of application in Mohamadi, rate of interest has to be reasonable rate on a par with accident claim cases. 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 up to the date of payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal position in this regard is on a par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in this manner. (Emphasis supplied) 14) In the present proceeding, the claimant, in her affidavit dated 9/7/2019, in paragraph 5 has specifically stated that “my deceased son was bonafide passenger of local train holding return journey ticket from Kurla to Mankhurd which is lost in the accident.” While learned counsel appearing before the Tribunal cross-examined the claimant, however, he did not put any question as regards the railway ticket, neither railway has examined any witness in the present proceeding. 15) Therefore, in the present case the averments made in the affidavit of the Appellant No. 1 are in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph no. 29 of Rina Devi’s (supra) judgment. Hence, Point - (b) is answered in affirmative in favour of the appellant and it is held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 29 of Rina Devi’s (supra) judgment. Hence, Point - (b) is answered in affirmative in favour of the appellant and it is held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. POINT – (c):- Untoward Incident : - 16) The Railway Tribunal though answered the issue in favour of appellant, however, the findings recorded are against the appellant, hence, the point is considered by me for determination. 17) In the present proceedings, the appellant in her affidavit dated 9/7/2019, it has been mentioned that the deceased was travelling from Mankhurd to Kurla station and he accidentally fell down from the running train between Mankhurd and Govandi Railway stations. Further it is stated that the deceased was travelling with valid railway ticket. In the cross-examination nothing contradictory was found. To counter this, railway have not examined any witness. 18) The Supreme Court in the case of Jameela & ors. vs. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 3705 while considering the fact that the deceased was standing at the open door of running train compartment when he fell down, the Court held that it may be an act of negligence of deceased, however, the railway would be liable to pay compensation. In paragraph 9, it held that, negligence is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124-A. Criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Therefore, standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour. Paragraph 9 reads as under:- 9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon  on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon  on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fall even after assuming everything in its favour. (Emphasis supplied) 19) Similarly, Supreme Court in the case of Sanyoka Devi vs. Union of India, 2023 (2) T.A.C. 16 (S.C.), held that when a person falls from a running train on its originating station due to heavy rush though there is an allegation of mental sickness by his own son, the grounds on which the Railway Tribunal has dismissed the claim is absurd. Since there is no oral or documentary evidence to indicate the mental sickness of the deceased, the claim has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not on the parameters of “beyond any reasonable doubt”. Paragraph 20 reads as under : 20. The Tribunal and the High Court have overlooked the fact that the appellant successfully discharged the initial onus on her by proving that the deceased had bought a valid railway ticket and boarded the train to reach the specified destination. It was a compensatory claim, originating out of a social welfare legislation, and such claim ought to have been examined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not on the parameters of “beyond any reasonable doubt” as we often apply in a criminal trial. (Emphasis supplied) 20) The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors., 2008 ACJ 1895 held that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In either case it amounts to an “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’. Therefore, it is within the definition of ‘untoward incident’ as per Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. In either case it amounts to an “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’. Therefore, it is within the definition of ‘untoward incident’ as per Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. 20.1) Further it was held that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, the beneficial and welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation. The expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” including accidents when a bonafide passenger is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. 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. Paragraphs 10, 12, 14 and 17 read as under:- 10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’. Hence, it is an ‘untoward incident’ as defined in section 123(c) of the Railways Act. 12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, the beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation. 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. 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 the 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. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression. 17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of rail-way accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. (Emphasis supplied) 21) Considering the evidence led in the present proceeding and law as laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments discussed above, the ratio laid in the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present proceedings. Hence, this first appeal deserves to be allowed. Interference is required in the impugned judgment and order. The Points for determination (a) and (c) are answered in affirmative in favour of the appellant. POINT – (d):- Compensation and Interest 22) Considering the date of the accident i.e. 26/8/2014, the provisions of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as they stood prior to 01.01.2017, would be applicable, and the compensation payable for death would be Rs.4,00,000/-. Supreme Court in the judgment of Rina Devi (supra) in paragraph no. 30 has held that, interest will be payable from the date of the accident. Having regard to the legal position, which is held to be on par with claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, interest @9% per annum (i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum or Rs.3,000/- per month) appears to be just and reasonable. 30 has held that, interest will be payable from the date of the accident. Having regard to the legal position, which is held to be on par with claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, interest @9% per annum (i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum or Rs.3,000/- per month) appears to be just and reasonable. It is well settled that Section 124A of the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. The Rules of 1990 are framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the Railways Act, 1989. 22.1) Taking into account the date of the award i.e. 24/9/2019, which is subsequent to the amendment to the said Rules of 1990 in the year 2016 (whereby the compensation payable for death has been revised to Rs.8,00,000/-), paragraph 18 of Rina Devi (supra) would apply. Accordingly, a comparison between the two amounts is required to be made, and the higher of the two amounts is liable to be awarded, this being under a beneficial piece of legislation. ORDER A) The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 24/9/2019 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of findings decided on issue nos.1. The findings recorded on issue no.2, 3 and 4 which has been answered in favour of the appellant, is hereby confirmed. B) The date of the incident is 26/8/2014 and the amount as compensation as claimed on that date was Rs.4,00,000/-. The award was passed by the Tribunal on 24/9/2019. By that time, the compensation payable pursuant to the amended Rules was enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/-. However, considering the interest from the date of accident till today on Rs.4,00,000/- @ 9% would be Rs.4,14,000/-. The total amount as of today would be Rs.8,14,000/-. As per the ratio of the judgment of Rina Devi (supra), the higher of the two amounts is Rs.8,14,000/-. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant stands allowed to Rs.8,14,000/-. C) The said amount of Rs.8,14,000/- be deposited by the railways in bank account of appellant within a period of eight weeks from the date when the appellants furnish the bank details to the Chief Claim Officer, Central Railways. D) If the said amount is not deposited in her bank account within a stipulated period, it will carry further interest @ 9% p.a. till time of the payment. E) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Judgment. D) If the said amount is not deposited in her bank account within a stipulated period, it will carry further interest @ 9% p.a. till time of the payment. E) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Judgment. 23) The first appeal stands disposed of accordingly.