( 1 ) POTHU Varahalamma, a woman aged 60 years, died in the early hours of 13-01-1998 while alighting the Godavari Express at Tuni. Her children, the respondents herein, filed o. A. A. No. 36 of 1998 before the Railway claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, claiming compensation on the ground that her death occurred on account of the accidental fall. The appellant resisted the plea. Though its order, dated 05-10-1998, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the respondents as compensation. Hence, this appeal by the South Central Railway, secunderabad. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that even according to the First information Report, marked as a document, and the evidence on record, its is clear that the deceased attempted to alight the train from the off side of the platform and thereby, she was negligent. According to him, the railways cannot be held responsible to pay compensation where an injury or death takes place on account of the negligence or lack of prudence on the part of the victims. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the deceased was forced to alight from the offside of the platform on account of the fact that the door of the coach towards the platform side was closed. ( 4 ) THE fact that the deceased died while alighting the train is not in dispute. R. W. 1, who was on duty as Guard of the train, deposed about the said fact. Once a bona fide passenger is found to have died on account of an accidental fall from the train, the liability to pay the compensation on the part of the railways arises under the provisions of the railways Act. The appellant sought to avoid its liability by pleading that the death of the deceased occurred on account of her own negligence and that the accident comes within the exceptions carved out under section 124 (a) of the Railways Act. ( 5 ) IT has come on record that the deceased was travelling along with her daughter and both the them were destined to alight at tuni. It is also not in dispute that they were forced to alight from the offside of the platform because of the fact that the door towards the platform side was closed. ( 5 ) IT has come on record that the deceased was travelling along with her daughter and both the them were destined to alight at tuni. It is also not in dispute that they were forced to alight from the offside of the platform because of the fact that the door towards the platform side was closed. The daughter of the deceased alighted and received the luggage also, but by the time the deceased was alighting, the train started moving and as a result, she fell down and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of the deceased, which canbe said to have contributed to her death. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. ( 6 ) THE C. M. A. is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.