1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.81 OF 2005. APPELLANTS : 1. Smt.Archana wd/o Satish Kumar Agrawal, aged about 37 years, Occu: Household, 2. Himanshu s/o Satish Kumar Agrawal, aged about 15 years, Occu: Student. 3. Hitesh s/o Satish Kumar Agrawal, aged about 11 years, Occu: Student. 4. Himesh s/o Satish Kumar Agrawal, aged about 11 years, Occu: Student. Appellants No.2 to 4 Minors through their mother Natural Gurdian Smt.Archana wd/o Satish Kumar Agrawal. All resident of Burhanpur, Distt.Khandwa (M.P.) 5. Ganpatlal Chhotelalji Agrawal, aged about 60 years, Occu: Agriculturist (Deleted) VERSUS RESPONDENT: Union of India, through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai. -=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr.P.S.Khubalkar, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2 CORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J. DATED: 20th January, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The short question that arises for consideration for this court in the instant appeal from order is whether the accidental fall resulting into the death of Satish Kumar while stepping into the train on 28th of November, 2000 at Bhusaval Railway Station is an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(C) of the Railways Act. 2. The appellants are the wife and children of deceased Satish Kumar, who filed an application seeking compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. The Railway Tribunal by impugned judgment dated 29th of September, 2004 held that deceased Satish Kumar was a bona fide passenger of train No.3004, which passed Bhusaval on 28th November, 2000 and that the appellants are his dependents. It, however, rejected the claim for compensation on the ground that the death of Satish Kumar was not occurred as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Bhusaval Railway Station. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon subsequent decision in Union of India ..vs.. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors., 3 reported in 2008 AIR SCW 4165 submits that it has now been held by the Apex Court that the expression accidental fall of a passenger from a train carrying passengers will include a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railway Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. In view of this, the appeal must be allowed and the impugned order set aside. The appeal is allowed. The order dated 24th of September, 2004 passed by the Railway Tribunal in Civil Application No.16/OA/II/RCT/BGP of 2001 is set aside. The claim application is allowed. JUDGE. chute 4 x