JUDGMENT MOHINDER PAL, J. - The claimants widow, minor daughter and father of the deceased Sukhwinder Singh filed a claim application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.30 Lacs from the respondent on account of death of said Sukhwinder Singh in the railway accident alleged to have taken place on 12.7.2006. 2. Case of the petitioners as stated in the claim application is that on 12.7.2006, Sukhwinder Singh was travelling in train No.626-A for journey from Sunam to Gurne. After alighting from the train at Railway Station, Gurne, he moved for his Village Chotian on Kachha path. In the railway premises i.e. yard of Railway Station, Gurne, electricity pole was fixed and due to slip of foot, Sukhwinder Singh fell down on the wires of electric pole and died due to the electric shock. The death of the deceased was due to the negligence on the part of the railway authorities. 3. After notice, railways have contested the claim application with the preliminary objections regarding maintainability and the claim being highly exaggerated. It has been submitted that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger nor holding valid ticket or document to travel in the train. On merits, it was averred that the claimants have failed to produce any document to prove the relationship with the deceased and have denied that no such incident had taken place. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short - `the Tribunal') framed following issues:- “1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as alleged, in the train in question at the time of accident? 2. Whether the alleged incident is covered within the ambit of Section 123(a) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act? 3. Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased? 4. Relief” 4. Issues No.1 and 2 were taken up together to decide by recording a finding that the untoward incident vide which the deceased died due to the electric shock was not covered under Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short -`the Act') and accordingly the claim was declined by dismissing the application. Aggrieved from this order of the Tribunal, the claimants have come in appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, who argued that admittedly Sukhwinder Singh died due to the electric shock. The pole and the transformer supplying the electricity was installed in the railway premises. Aggrieved from this order of the Tribunal, the claimants have come in appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, who argued that admittedly Sukhwinder Singh died due to the electric shock. The pole and the transformer supplying the electricity was installed in the railway premises. The field which was fenced by the barbed wire was also belonging to the railway authorities and it was duty of the Railway to maintain and keep the electric pole in a perfect condition. As they were negligent in their duty and that Sukhwinder Singh received electric shock and died, the claimants were entitled to the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has argued that the claim application was liable to be dismissed in view of the fact that it was not covered under the definition of Section 123 of the Act. It is further contended that Sukhwinder Singh had deliberately chosen a wrong path to go to his village and as he himself was negligent, the Railway was not at all liable to pay the compensation. He laid emphasis on the point that as per site plan, the field around which the barbed wire has been fixed was belonging to one Dhanna Singh and as this property was not part of the Railway, the respondent was not liable to pay the compensation. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides. Section 123 of the Act defines untoward incident as follows:- “123. Definitions.-In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in Section 124; (b) xx xx xx xx (c) “untoward incident” means - (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 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, cloak room 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. 8. 8. Compensation in respect of a victim of untoward incident is payable under Section 124-A of the Act ibid, which reads as under:- “124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident. When in the course of working a railway 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 entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent of 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 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.” 9. Proviso to this section further makes it clear that the railway authorities are not liable to pay compensation in case of suicide, has inflicted injury, own criminal act, intoxication or any natural cause or disease. Present is a case in which Sukhwinder Singh has died because of the electric shock. Now it is to be seen whether the respondent is in no way connected with the incident from which Sukhwinder Singh has died. It is not disputed that the pole from which the electricity had leaked was installed in the railway premises. Perusal of the other documents placed on the file i.e. the inquest report as well as the inquiry report and proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. leaves no doubt that apart from pole, the field which was surrounded by the barbed wire also belongs to the railways. No doubt it has been mentioned that one Gurmit Singh has been cultivating this field but the fact that it actually belongs to the railway authorities cannot be ignored. P.C. leaves no doubt that apart from pole, the field which was surrounded by the barbed wire also belongs to the railways. No doubt it has been mentioned that one Gurmit Singh has been cultivating this field but the fact that it actually belongs to the railway authorities cannot be ignored. Otherwise also, perusal of this site plan shows that transformer has been installed in centre of this field which supplies electricity to the pole and to the railway platform etc. The arguments of learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased had chosen a wrong path cannot be given weightage in view of the fact that he was going to his village and had chosen to walk on a passage which was leading to his village. As untoward incident this case does not fall into any of the exceptions as mentioned in Section 124-A of the Act, the railway authorities are liable to pay the compensation. In the written statement, it is also stand of the respondent that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Even this stand of the respondent is against the fact as a railway ticket has been found from the person of the deceased at the time of his personal search. 10. In Satyabir and others v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways and others, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 721, it has been held that where there was no proper maintenance of the pole and victim who was not even a railway passenger died due to the negligence act on the part of Railway Department, the claimants were held entitled to the compensation under the Railway Accident Rules, 1990. 11. Applying the same analogy and keeping in view all the facts in the case in hand, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The claimants are awarded Rs.4 Lacs as lump-sum compensation on account of death of Sukhwinder Singh. All the claimants will share the compensation of amount equally. The respondent will make the payment of compensation within a period of two months from today. 12. This appeal is accordingly is allowed with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.