Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -Union of India under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the order dated 14.12.2001 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. OA -II -15/2001, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/ - with interest @9% for the death of Sh. Kana Ram, who died in the accident. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the son of the applicants Shri Kana Ram was traveling from Ajmer to Jodhpur on 15.1.2001 by Ajmer Jodhpur Passenger train. Shri Kana Ram was holding a second class computerized ticket No. 44595062 dated 15.1.2001. In the night of 15/16.01.2001, when the train was running near 2 Kerla Station, Shri Kana Ram accidentally fell down from the running train and suffered grievous injuries on his head, due to which he expired on the spot. Being dark, his body was found in the morning lying on the ballast near the railway track by a Pointsman of Kerla Station, who informed the Station Master on duty.
(2.) THE Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who fell down from the running train and hence his case was covered under the "untoward incident" within the meaning of Sec. 123(c) for the purpose of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to submit that the case of the deceased would fall under the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, which would disentitle the claimants to claim compensation under the said provision. According to him, the deceased had died on account of his own negligence which should be construed as the self inflicted injury and hence the proviso would come into play. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents -claimants while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that the deceased had died in an untoward incident and hence the claimants were entitled to the compensation for his death.
(3.) HAVING regard to the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that it was not disputed by the appellants that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question. Now Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines 'untoward incident' to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers, and Section 124A of the Said Act lays down strict liability or no fault liability on the railway administration to pay compensation to the dependent of the passenger who died on account of such untoward incident, or to the passenger who received injuries on account of such untoward incident. If the case falls within the purview of Section 124A, it is not relevant as to who was at fault. Of course, no compensation shall be payable under the said provision, if the case falls under any of the grounds mentioned in the proviso to the said Section 124A, however, in such case the burden would be on the railway authorities to prove that the case fell under the proviso. It is also well settled proposition of law that beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal interpretation which is in consonance with the object of the Act, and for the benefit of the persons for whom the Act is made.;