( 1 ) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the claimants against the order passed by the Railway claims Tribunal, Secunderabad in O. A. A. No. 135 of 1996 dated 9. 12. 1997 dismissing the claim for compensation.

( 2 ) ONE Bala Krishna Mohan died by accidentally falling down from Nagarjuna express, while he was trying to board the train on 18. 1. 1996. Therefore, dependants of the deceased laid a claim for compensation. The Railway Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) held that appellantsapplicants are dependants of the deceased. However, on the question as to whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not, the Tribunal held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal, however, held that the accidental fall of the deceased is an untoward incident covered by section 123 (c) (2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellants-applicants by its order dated 9. 12. 1997, against which the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has admitted that the deceased was having a valid railway ticket and that he fell down while trying to board the train No. 7006 from Secunderabad to Guntur. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is absolutely misconceived and the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Railway act.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal held that the deceases was having a railway ticket to board the train from Guntur to Secunderabad, but he was trying to board the incoming trai from Secunderabad to Guntur at Guntur platform, as he knew that the same train would come back as Guntur-Secunderabad express after unloading the passengers at guntur and, therefore, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. On that ground, the Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim of the claimants.

( 5 ) FOR proper appreciation of the case, it is necessary to refer relevant provisions of the Railways Act. Under sub-clause (c) of section 123 of the Railways Act, the term untoward incident is defined. It reads as under:" (C) untoward incident means (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloakroom or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passengers from a train carrying passengers. "

( 6 ) IN fact the Tribunal itself found that it is an accidental fall and comes within the meaning of untoward incident . Therefore, the question that falls for consideration in this case, is, as to whether the deceased was a passenger covered by the provisions of section 124-A of Railways Act or not. Section 124-A of the Railways Act reads thus:"124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incident 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 dependant 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 a