M. NARAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment, according to law, based on the legal material placed, on Record, arises out of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against respondent Nos. 1 to 4, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, questioning the, validity and legality of the adjudications made by, and set forth in paragraph 2 infra. ( 2 ) ORDERS, dated 10-9-1997, of the railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad made in O. A. A. No. 20 of 1997 of its file. ( 3 ) PERUSED the material papers of the record. ( 4 ) ARGUMENTS were heard of the learned counsel for both sides. ( 5 ) THE sole appellant herein corresponds to the sole respondent in the said o. A. A. No. 20/1997, of the said Tribunal. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein correspond, respectively, to, applicant Nos. 1 to 4, in that o. A. A. ( 6 ) THE parties are, hereinafter referred to, as such, as in that O. A. A. No. 20/1997, unless, otherwise, so specified. ( 7 ) AFTER due enquiry into the said O. A. A. No. 20 of 1997, filed before it, by the four applicants, against the sole respondent, for recovery of total compensation of rs. 2,00,000/-, in respect of the death of the deceased covered thereby, in a train accident on 18-6-1996 at Elamanchili, while travelling in the East Coast Express, the said Tribunal adjudicated thereupon, by the aforesaid now impugned orders, set forth in para-2 supra as under: (i) Directing the sole respondent to pay rs. 2,00,000/- in respect of the death of the deceased covered by case etc. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED thereby and questioning the validity and legality, of the foregoing adjudications, made in that O. A. A. No. 20 of 1997, the sole respondent filed the present c. M. A. as set forth in paras 1 and 2 supra. ( 9 ) THE said Tribunal, on issue No. (II) framed by it, found that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. After considering the reasonings and observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned orders, wherein, the Tribunal dealt with that issue, I am fully satisfied therewith and hence accept the same as such. ( 9 ) THE said Tribunal, on issue No. (II) framed by it, found that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. After considering the reasonings and observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned orders, wherein, the Tribunal dealt with that issue, I am fully satisfied therewith and hence accept the same as such. ( 10 ) SIMILARLY, on Issue No. (I), in paras 8 and 9 of the impugned orders, the Tribunal dealt with as to who are the legal representatives of the deceased and found the same therein. I am satisfied therewith, and hence accept the same as such. ( 11 ) ON Issue No. (III) as to whether the death of the deceased was an untoward incident, within the meaning of Section 123 of the said Railways Act, the Tribunal dealt with the same in extenso, in paras 13 to 18 of the impugned Orders, and finally found that the incident is an untoward incident, as defined. After considering the same in the light of the arguments of both the parties, I am satisfied therewith and hence, accept the same as such. ( 12 ) WHEN so, the Tribunal rightly awarded on Issue No. (iv), total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 etc. , by the now impugned award. ( 13 ) HENCE, the impugned order do not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity or illegality or unsustainability and hence, the same, is liable to be confirmed in toto, as is being done, hereunder. ( 14 ) HENCE, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the Civil Miscellaneous appeal dismissing the same, in toto, but, with costs to none. ( 15 ) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.