G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the Union of india represented by the General Manager, south Central Railway, Secunderabad, against the award of the Railway Claims tribunal in OAA No. 68 of 1997, dated 11-12-1997. ( 2 ) ONE person by name Mohd. Sabeer died in a train accident. His wife and seven children filed an application before the railway Claims Tribunal for compensation, and the Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation to the respondents. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality. ( 3 ) THE accident occurred on 5-6-1997 at yakutpura Railway Station with a passenger train No. 550. At the time of accident, the deceased alleged to have boarded the moving train and due to that he slipped, which resulted in his death. The Tribunal in its award mentioned that the claimants are entitled for compensation on account of death of the deceased in the railway accident. The Tribunal referred to section 123 of the Railways Act, which states that the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers constitutes an untoward incident. The tribunal further observed that the Act does not specify whether the fall has to be necessarily inside the train to outside. The tribunal further observed that the case on hand does not fall under any of the five exceptions prescribed in Sec. 124-A of the railways Act. The Tribunal further observed that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the deceased tried to inflict the injury on himself for reasons of his own. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the accidental fall of the deceased amounts to an untoward incident. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for compensation. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to a Judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Union of India v. Baburao Koddekar and others wherein the Division Bench of this High Court held as follows:"under sub-clause (2) of Clause (c) of section 123 of the Act, after the incident of accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers is also brought within the ambit of untoward incident . That being so, the accidental fall of a passenger shall include a passenger trying to board a train and also trying to alight a train and in that process loses control and falls down and sustain injuries which results in his/her death. Accidental fall of a passenger provided under sub-clause (2) of Clause (c) of section 123 is capable of taking within its fold such incidents of falling as narrated by the Court and as such, the death/disability so caused would fall within the ambit of untoward incident as provided under Clause (c) of section 123 of the Act, which provision was inserted through Amendment Act no. 28 of 1994". ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents also relied on a Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Rathi Menon v. Union of India, wherein the Hon ble supreme Court directed the railway administration to pay compensation to the legal heirs of a person who died on account of accidental fall from the train. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in union of India, South Central Railways, secunderabad v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah, dhone, Kumool District and others, wherein a Full Bench of this Court held as under:"accidental fall would include a passenger trying to alight a train, board a train, or any other like action, and hence, they would be covered by untoward incident as specified in section 123 Clause (c) of the Act. " ( 7 ) IN the case on hand, the deceased alleged to have boarded the moving train and slipped, which resulted in his death. In the light of the Judgment of Full Bench of this high Court, the fall of the deceased while boarding the train can be treated as an untoward incident. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in coming to a conclusion that it amounts to an untoward incident. ( 8 ) IN view of the above judgment of a Full bench of this Court and in the light of the circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the award of the railway Claims Tribunal. ( 9 ) IN the result the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.