By the Court.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award of Railway Claims Tribunal dated 17.3.2015 rejecting claim petition of the appellants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.6.2010 deceased Mohammad Rafiq (husband of appellant) was traveling by train LKM Passenger from Kanpur Central to Lucknow, after purchasing a valid Second Class traveling ticket. He accidentally fell down from the train near Kanpur Central and Kanpur Bridge (LB) Railway stations and sustained serous injuries resulting in his death on the spot. The heirs of deceased-Mohd. Safeeq filed claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, which was contested by respondent-Union of India by filing written statement pleading inter alia that the deceased did not fall down from the train in question accidentally on the alleged date of occurrence. He was not a bona fide passenger of the train. It was also pleaded that case of claimants did not come under the purview of Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:

“1. Wheter the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question?

2. Whether incident of death of the deceased falls under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

3. Whether the applicant is only dependent of the deceased?

4. To what relief ?”

4. In order to substantiate their claim appellant-claimants examined AW-1 Shahnaz Begum, widow of deceased and AW-2 Sri M.S.Khan to prove that deceased was bona fide passenger of the train. On behalf of respondent RW-1 Sri Sanjai Gupta, investigator of the case was also examined.

5. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, learned Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger of the alleged train nor case of the claimants come within the purview of untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, the claim of the appellants was dismissed vide order dated 17.3.2015.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by Railway Claims Tribunal the claimants have preferred this appeal.

7. We have heard Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Pratul Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent.

8. Before we proceed to decide this appeal, it is appropriate and convenient to extract provisions of Section 124A of Railways Act:

“Compensation on account of untoward incident.—When in the course of working in 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 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 or medical or surgical treatement unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.

Explanation—For the purposes 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”.

9. Thus Section 124A of Railways Act Provides that when in the course of working a railway an unto