NARAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment, according to law, based on the legal material placed on record by both the parties arises out of a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the sole appellant, against the sole respondent, under section 23 of Railway claims Tribunal Act, 1987, questioning the validity and legality of the adjudication made by and set forth in para 2, infra. ( 2 ) ORDER dated 28. 6. 1996 of Railway claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, secunderabad, on its file, made in O. A. A. No. 12 of 1995. ( 3 ) PERUSED the material papers of the record. ( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the sole appellant and the learned counsel for the sole respondent. ( 5 ) THE sole appellant herein corresponds to sole applicant in the said O. A. A. No. 12 of 1995 of the said Tribunal. The sole respondent herein, respectively, corresponds to the sole respondent in the said o. A. A. ( 6 ) THE parties are hereinafter referred to, as such, as in that O. A. A. No. 12 of 1995 unless otherwise specified so. ( 7 ) THE sole applicant filed the said o. A. A. No. 12 of 1995 against the sole respondent for recovery of total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 in respect of the death of the deceased in the train accident that occurred on 25. 9. 1994 at 7 a. m. when the train reached outer signal of Bolaram railway Station, while she was travelling in Ajantha Express from Kamareddy to hyderabad and the said Tribunal finally adjudicated upon the said O. A. A. No. 12 of 1995 by the now impugned orders as under:"dismissing the application in toto without costs. " ( 8 ) QUESTIONING the validity and legality of the now impugned orders, the respondent did not file any independent C. M. A. nor did file any cross-objections in the present C. M. A. It is only the sole applicant who filed this present C. M. A. questioning the legality and validity of the adjudication set forth in para 2, supra and urged that the same are unsustainable as per fact and law and hence is liable to be dismissed in toto, as such, etc. ( 9 ) ON issue No. 2 framed by the Tribunal the Tribunal found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and was holding a valid ticket. ( 9 ) ON issue No. 2 framed by the Tribunal the Tribunal found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and was holding a valid ticket. In the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, this finding on issue No. 2 became final and binding on all concerned. ( 10 ) ON issue No. 1 framed by it, the tribunal recorded a finding that the death of the deceased is not an untoward incident within the meaning of section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act. ( 11 ) AFTER considering the evidence on this issue No. 1, dealt with by the Tribunal in paras 5 to 14 of its impugned orders in detail I am of the opinion that the finding on issue No. 1 as recorded by the Tribunal is unsustainable and erroneous as per fact and law. ( 12 ) CONSIDERING the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that a conclusion has to be arrived at and finding has to be recorded to the effect that death of the deceased is an untoward incident within the meaning of the said provision of law. ( 13 ) HENCE the finding recorded by the tribunal on issue No. 1 has to be modified and it is hereby modified accordingly to the effect that death of the deceased was an untoward incident within the meaning of section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act. ( 14 ) IN view of the finding on issue No. 1, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 that the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the applicant as claimed in the O. A. A. , has to be modified as is being ordered hereunder. ( 15 ) HENCE the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the C. M. A. as under: (I) Setting aside the impugned orders set forth in para 2, supra in toto; and (II) Consequently, adjudicating upon the said O. A. A. No. 12 of 1995, directing the sole respondent to pay to the sole applicant the total compensation of rs. 2,00,000 (two lakhs ). Appeal allowed.