( 1 ) BOTH the appeals can be disposed of by this common order since they arise out of the same accident. ( 2 ) THE claimant filed O. A. A. Nos. 153 and 154 of 1996 before the Railway Claims tribunal, Secunderabad claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in each application on the ground that his wife and son while boarding the train at Falaknuma fell down and grievously injured and on their way to Kachiguda, they died. The matter was resisted by the railway authorities. It was contended that the incident was not an accidental fall but it was a hit by the train while the deceased were crossing the railway track to reach platform No. 2. The Tribunal held that the deceased were bona fide passengers and that the accident did not fall within the definition of untoward incident under Section 123-C of the Act and accordingly rejected the claim for compensation by order dated 9-9-1997 against which the present appeals have been preferred by the claimant. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the claimant mr. Murthy submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the incident was not an accidental fall and that it was a hit by the running train and therefore it did not fall within the definition of untoward incident is absolutely mis-conceived and runs contrary to the evidence on record. The learned counsel has taken the Court through the evidence of the eye witnesses who were examined on behalf of the claimant and also on behalf of the driver of the train. The learned counsel submits that Kistamma, who is the eye witness to the accident is a relative of the deceased. She clearly stated that she along with other relative including the deceased were to board the train at falaknuma and they had also purchased tickets at Falaknuma station to go to secunderabad. While some of them have already entered the compartment, the deceased were trying to board the train and they slipped on account of which they sustained grievous injuries and while they weie being shifted to Kachiguda Station, they died. The inquest was conducted at kachiguda railway station. While some of them have already entered the compartment, the deceased were trying to board the train and they slipped on account of which they sustained grievous injuries and while they weie being shifted to Kachiguda Station, they died. The inquest was conducted at kachiguda railway station. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel would also submit that the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased have not fallen and that the incident was a hit by the running train is also not borne out by record and it presumed the things, which did not exist. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the burden lies on the railways to establish that it was not an untoward incident and no evidence was adduced to that effect. Further, the issue is covered by the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in CMA Nos. 2374 of 1998 and batch dated 7-6-2002. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that it is a case where the claims ought to have been allowed by the Tribunal holding that the accidental fall is covered by Section 123 (c) of the Act. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the railways however submits that there is no evidence whatsoever adduced by the claimant to prove that the deceased fell while boarding the train and that the Tribunal also took note of the circumstances that two persons cannot board the train simultaneously and therefore the question of the deceased falling simultaneously would not arise and therefore the Tribunal has quite rightly recorded a finding that it is not an accidental fall and that it was a hit by the running train. ( 6 ) THE issue that calls for consideration is whether it is an accidental fall or whether the incident falls within the exceptions under section 124-A of the Act. ( 7 ) AS far as the evidence of Kistamma is concerned she was examined on behalf of the claimant. It is not in dispute that she was also traveling in the said train. She deposed that she along with the relatives of the deceased and the deceased were to travel from Falaknuma to Secunderabad after performing a customary ritual at that place. It is not in dispute that she was also traveling in the said train. She deposed that she along with the relatives of the deceased and the deceased were to travel from Falaknuma to Secunderabad after performing a customary ritual at that place. On the other hand, the driver of the train had stated that he has seens to 6 persons crossing the railway track and he has whistled but however these two persons were trapped in between the platform and the track and they were crushed. According to the driver the deceased were not in the process of catching the train but they were hit by the train while they were crossing the railway track. But it is to be noted in this regard that the evidence of the eyewitness examined on behalf of the claimant was not discredited by the Tribunal and it is also borne out by record that the deceased were having the tickets and they were found to be bona fide passengers. It is also not in dispute that number of relatives of the deceased were to board the train at falaknuma. In this scenario, it has to be considered that whether the case was made out for compensation. ( 8 ) EXCEPT the driver of the train who is an interest witness, no other independent witness was examined in support of the case of the railways. On the other hand, the relatives of the deceased who were traveling in the train had categorically deposed that the deceased were trying to board the train and in that process they fell down. It is not necessary that there should be heavy rush in the train and it is not the case of the claimant that on account of heavy rush, the deceased were pushed out. But it is a case of fall while boarding the train and which contingency is also covered by the expression untoward incident . The Tribunal has taken altogether a different view of the situation. The following is the extract of the decision. "analysis of the evidence leads to the following findings: the inquest report, the Memo from the station Master, Falaknuma on which the FIR was based, the extract from the guard s rough journal all indicate that the deceased were carrying two journeys tickets No. 11797 and 11798 from Falaknuma to Secunderabad. The following is the extract of the decision. "analysis of the evidence leads to the following findings: the inquest report, the Memo from the station Master, Falaknuma on which the FIR was based, the extract from the guard s rough journal all indicate that the deceased were carrying two journeys tickets No. 11797 and 11798 from Falaknuma to Secunderabad. Thus there is no doubt that they were bona fide passengers. The certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kompally, certified that P. Bheernaiah is the husband of p. Kamalamma, deceased in OAA. 153/ 96 and is the father of P. Srinivas deceased in OAA. 154/96. The Applicant, while deposing as a. W. 1, has stated that he has another son and a daughter living named Raju aged 8 years and Bujji aged 6 years respectively. He is prepared to share the compensation with these two surviving children. It is proved that the Appellant and his two surviving minor children are the bona fide heirs of the two deceased in the two cases. The crux of the problem lies in deciding whether the cause of the accident and the consequent death of the two victims was a result of an untoward incident by way of a fall from the train in which they were passengers or whether they met their death by being run over by the train while they were crossing the track as alleged by the respondent. At the outset it appears rather improbable that two people can fall down simultaneously from the train while trying to board. In the normal circumstances, one passenger can only fall, the other one is getting on to the foot board and then into the compartment. The situation may be different in case of heavy crowd and rush and it some times happens on festival days. In the present case, there is noevidence of a heavy rush/or crowd being there on the platform on that day at the time of arrival of the train. The alleged eyewitness of the accident who has deposed on behalf of the applicant has not spoken of any heavy rush on that day. From what she stated in the deposition it appears that her son srinivas was trying to board the train first and the mother Kasamma was following him. The alleged eyewitness of the accident who has deposed on behalf of the applicant has not spoken of any heavy rush on that day. From what she stated in the deposition it appears that her son srinivas was trying to board the train first and the mother Kasamma was following him. It definitely appears rather uncommon that both the persons would slip and fall down one after the other. On cne hand we have the evidence of the alleged eyewitness kistamma vouchsafing a fall from the train by both the victims and the police inquest, which is based on her direct version. On the other hand, we have the depositions made by the station master, falaknuma, the Guard of the train and the driver of the train strengthened by the official documents filed by them alleging that the death was due to being run over by the train while crossing the track in front of the train. The Driver of the train categorically states that as he was bringing his train into Falaknuma Railway Station he saw five to six passengers crossing the track in front of the train while trying to change over from platform No. 1 to platform No. 2. He also says that he whistled to warn these persons and while the rest of them cleared the track and got on to platform No. 2, the two victims in these two cases could not clear the track in time and as they were making efforts to scramble up to platform No. 2 they were hit by the engine of the train and fell between the train and platform. He sticks to his version and has not faltered when he was cross-examined by the Counsel for the Applicant. The R. W. 2 i. e. , the Guard of the Train states that he did not see the occurrence of the incident but he confirms that the engine Driver reported the incident to him, viz. , one male and one female were hit by the train as the train was rolling into Falaknuma Station on No. 2 line. As he had seen the situation and the position of the two bodies he gives his opinion that the two victims must have fallan between the platform and train as they failed in their attempt to get on to the platform No. 2 before the engine reached them and hit them. As he had seen the situation and the position of the two bodies he gives his opinion that the two victims must have fallan between the platform and train as they failed in their attempt to get on to the platform No. 2 before the engine reached them and hit them. The r. W. 1 i. e. , the S. M. Falaknuma, deposes that he saw the two bodies between the platform and the train when he went to the spot after being reported to by the guard of the train. The relevant entries in the Train Signal Register and the control Message Book in which the entries were made on the day of accident are in tune with his deposition and there is no contradiction. The rough journal maintained by the guard (R. W. 2) bears the remark that the "victim were hit by the train and came under the train. In the face of overwhelming evidence from the Respondent s side in which there is no contradiction or scope for doubt since the versions given by the respondent s witnesses are all supported by official records - we come to the conclusion that the two victims were run over by the train and killed as the train was entering into the station and they were not killed by felling down from the train in the process of boarding. " ( 9 ) THE issue could have been decided by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available. The presumption entertained by the Tribunal that it is improbable that two persons could not have tried to board the train at a time and have fallen down simultaneously is absolutely mis-conceived. There is no scope of coming to the conclusion that two persons could not have boarded the train simultaneously. Further the Tribunal observed that in the absence of any heavy rush or on a festival crowd there was no scope for the alleged fall while boarding the train. The said finding is a pure surmise. For falling from a train, there need not be any rush or any festival crowd. But it should be an incident, which could not have been foreseenby the deceased. The said finding is a pure surmise. For falling from a train, there need not be any rush or any festival crowd. But it should be an incident, which could not have been foreseenby the deceased. It is also in evidence that the accident has taken place at the spot when some of the bogies have already crossed the place of accident and the train was brought back by one bogie. That goes to show that the accident has taken place at the middle of the train and not at the beginning where the engine of the train was attached, If really the victims were hit by the engine they could have fallen down at that place only and not in the middle of the train. Under those circumstances, the probabilities as entertained by the Tribunal are wholly misconceived and they run contrary to the evidence on record. Apart from the driver of the train, only the stationmaster and the guard were examined who were not eye witnesses to the incident. Under those circumstances, the finding of the tribunal that the deceased were run over by the running train was absolutely misconceived and the same is not sustainable in law. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, it is to be held that the deceased have fell down while boarding the train and this situation is completely covered by the expression untoward incident as mentioned in Section 123 (C) of the Act inasmuch as it is proved that they are the bona fide passengers and the claimant is a dependent person to claim the compensation in respect of the death of his wife and son. There is no other issue which could be decided by this Court. ( 11 ) THE matter may also be considered on the basis of the view taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that it was not an accidental fall but victims were run over by the running train. In this regard Section 123 and 124-A are relevant which are extracted below:"123. Definitions:- In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in Section 124. The Tribunal held that it was not an accidental fall but victims were run over by the running train. In this regard Section 123 and 124-A are relevant which are extracted below:"123. Definitions:- In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in Section 124. (b) "dependent" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:- (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter in law and a minor children of a predeceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a predeceased daughter, wholly dependant on the deceased passenger, (iv) thepaternalgrandparentwholly dependant on the deceased passenger. (c) "untoward incident" means- (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the terrorist and Disruptive activities (Prevention) act, 1987 (29 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 passenger from a train carrying passengers,""124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents:- When in the course of working a raily 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 entitled 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 or 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" in includes- (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. " ( 12 ) FROM the conjoint reading of these two provisions and explanation of the expression passenger it discloses that any passenger having valid ticket including a platform ticket holder are entitled for compensation it they were found to be victims of untoward incident . Therefore/ it need not be only an accidental fall while boarding the train which would constitute untoward incident but there may be variety of incidents falling in the expression. May be accidental falling is one such facet of untoward incident. It is not the case of Railways that the incident fell within the exception. ( 13 ) THE Section is very specific and it is a beneficial provisions. Therefore, it has been concluded that each and every unintended and unforeseen event, except those covered by the excluded categories, will fall under the expression untoward incident . Therefore, even assuming that the victims were run over by moving train they are entitled for compensation if they fall under the explanation to Section 124-A of the Act. It was held by the Tribunal itself that they were bona fide passengers. Hence, even as per the finding of the tribunal that the victims run over by running train the compensation is payable. ( 14 ) UNDER these circumstances, viewed from any angle, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and accordingly it is held that the deceased were the victims of untoward incident. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for the amounts as claimed by him in O. A. A. Nos. 153 and 154 of 1996 i. e. , for a sum of Rs. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for the amounts as claimed by him in O. A. A. Nos. 153 and 154 of 1996 i. e. , for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The railways shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. ( 15 ) BOTH the appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.