ORDER B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the death of the husband and father of the petitioners while crossing an unmanned level crossing can be said to be an "untoward incident" as defined in Section 2(n) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), 1987 so as to confer jurisdiction to the RCT, In the instant case, the RCT, Guwahati Bench by its order dated 23-10-2003 returned the claim application filed by the petitioners claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased being run over by a passenger train while crossing the particular unmanned level crossing. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue direction to the RCT to entertain the said application and dispose of the same is accordance with law. Shortly stated, the facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioners' husband and father while was coming from Bijni Market riding on his bicycle along with another person was hit by MG (UP) passenger train No. 853 in the unmanned level crossing. Consequently, he sustained multiple injuries on his body and died on the same date. In due course, the attending doctors submitted post-mortem report etc. 2. Describing the aforesaid incident as a railway accident, the claimants/petitioners filed a claim application before the RCT, Guwahati Bench. The claim application having been returned by the impugned order dated 23-10-2003 on the ground of being not within the purview of the RCT, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition challenging the said order with the further prayer to direct the RCT, Guwahati Bench to hear and dispose of the said application expeditiously. 3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit denying any liability in the matter. The basic contention raised is that since the level crossing in question was unmanned with due caution in the signboards installed in both sides of the level crossing, the deceased ought not to have crossed the level crossing without first discharging the duty cast on him to see as to whether any train was passing by or not. As regards the claim of the petitioners that the RCT has got jurisdiction over the matter, it is the stand of the respondents that as per provisions of the RCT Act. 1987 coupled with the Railways Act. 1989, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over such matter. 4. As regards the claim of the petitioners that the RCT has got jurisdiction over the matter, it is the stand of the respondents that as per provisions of the RCT Act. 1987 coupled with the Railways Act. 1989, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over such matter. 4. This matter is pending since 2004 and to be precise with effect from 2-2-2004. The Railways had filed counter affidavit on 8-2-2005. The matter was taken up for hearing on 1-11-2011 followed by 22-11-2011. It is only thereafter, the petitioners have filed affidavit-in-reply along with an additional affidavit on 28-11-2011. Thus, such filing of the affidavits is after getting the pulse of the Court during the course of hearing of the writ petition on the aforesaid two dates. 5. In the aforesaid two affidavits, the petitioners have blamed the Railways in not providing railway gate and keeping the particular crossing unmanned. It has been stated that the unmanned level crossing in question is now being provided with gate realizing the fact that the same would lead to such untoward incident again. 6. I have heard Mr. R. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mrs. B. Debi, learned counsel representing the respondents. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the provisions of Railways Act. 1989 and RCT Act, 198/submits that it being an accident within the meaning of the provisions of the said two Acts and also being an 'untoward incident', the petitioners who are the wife and children of the deceased are entitled to adequate compensation. He submits that the Tribunal committed manifest error of law in returning the claim application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In support of his such submission, he has referred to two decisions, which are reported in AIR 1998 SC 640 , (Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) and 1998 (1) GLT 437 (FB). (Aswini Kumar Deka v. General Manager, ASTC). 7. Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel representing the Railways, on the other hand submits that the deceased having died because of his own negligence, the particular incident cannot be said to be an 'untoward incident' conferring jurisdiction to the Tribunal. Ltd.) and 1998 (1) GLT 437 (FB). (Aswini Kumar Deka v. General Manager, ASTC). 7. Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel representing the Railways, on the other hand submits that the deceased having died because of his own negligence, the particular incident cannot be said to be an 'untoward incident' conferring jurisdiction to the Tribunal. She submits that there being provisions in the Railways Act for unmanned level crossing with statutory duties on person while crossing the same, the deceased having not performed the said duty, the petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation. She also submits that the Tribunal rightly returned the claim application as it lacks jurisdiction as per the provisions of the aforesaid RCT Act, 1987. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record. 9. In the decisions referred to above, the Courts were concerned with the liability of the Railways in the context of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., ( AIR 1998 SC 640 ) (supra), the particular bus met with an accident as a result of collision with the train while crossing the unmanned level crossing. A question arose as to whether the claim application filed before the MACT would be maintainable against Railways as well, apart from the Insurance Company. When it was found there was contributory negligence on the part of the Railways as the unmanned level crossing had no caution board, it was held by the Apex Court that the Railways should be deemed to be negligent. 10. In Aswini Kumar Delta (supra) also the same question arose. The question raised was as to whether the claim for compensation is maintainable before MACT. In that case also collision occurred between a bus and a train. However, posing the question as to whether the MACT was competent under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old) has jurisdiction' in an appropriate case to award compensation under Section110B against a third party not covered by Section 110, it was held that the same would be maintainable. 11. Unlike the aforesaid two cases, in the instant proceeding, we are concerned with an incident in which a person while crossing unmanned level crossing died being hit by a passing train. 11. Unlike the aforesaid two cases, in the instant proceeding, we are concerned with an incident in which a person while crossing unmanned level crossing died being hit by a passing train. Under Section 161 of the Railways Act, 1989, if any person driving or leading a vehicle is negligent in crossing an unmanned level crossing, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year. For a ready reference, Section 161 of the Act is quoted below :- 161. Negligently crossing unmanned level crossing. - if any person driving or leading a vehicle is negligent in crossing an unmanned level crossing, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year. Explanation.- For the purpose of this Section, "negligence" in relation to any person driving or leading a vehicle in crossing an unmanned level crossing means the crossing of such level crossing by such person - (a) without stopping or caring to stop the vehicle near such level crossing to observe whether any approaching rolling stock is in sight, or (b) even while an approaching rolling stock is in sight. 12. From the above, what is seen is that existence of unmanned level crossing in the Railway Network is an admitted fact. It cannot be expected from the Railways to provide level crossing in each and every crossing throughout the country over which Railway Network works. It is in such circumstances, there are provisions for unmanned level crossing and to provide warning such unmanned level crossing by installing adequate warning board. As per the said warning board, any person crossing such unmanned level crossing is to take precaution by looking both sides of the track to ascertain as to whether any train is passing by or not. 13. The RCT was established in the year 1987 with the following object in mind : An Act to provide for the establishment of a Railway Claims Tribunal for inquiring into and determining claims against a railway administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration on non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to it to be carried by railway or for the refund of fares or freight or for compensation for death or injury to passengers occurring as a result of railway accidents (or untoward incidents) and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 14. 14. Section 13 of the Act dealing with jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims Tribunal provides that the Tribunal shall exercise the same relating to responsibility of the railway administration as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for - (i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway; (ii) compensation payable under Section 82-A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder. 15. The Tribunal shall also exercise such jurisdiction, power and authority in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway. 16. Section 13 (1-A) was inserted by latter amendment brought out in the year 1994 and to be precise with effect form 1-8-1994 and the same is reproduced below :- The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of amendment of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration under Section 124-A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder. 17. Section 2(n) defines "untoward incident' stipulating that the same shall have the meaning assigned to it in Clause (c) of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989. 18. Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 defines "accident" as an accident of the nature described in Section 124. Section 123(C) defines "untoward incident" as follows :- (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, cloakroom 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. 19. Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act. 19. Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act. 1989 defines 'passenger' as a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 124 and Section 124-A of the said Act prescribe the extent of liability and compensation on account of 'untoward incident'. For a ready reference, the said two Sections are quoted below : 124. Extent of liability.-- When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, 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 has suffered a loss 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 a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained, as a result of such accident. 124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. 124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. - 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 to such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due 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 of disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. 20. Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 makes provision for application for compensation. An application for compensation under Section 124 or Section 124-A may be made to the Claims Tribunal- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury or suffered may loss, or (b) by any agent duly authorized by such person in this behalf, or (c) where such person is a minor, by his guardian, or (d) where death has resulted from the accident (or the untoward incident), by any dependent of the deceased or where such a dependant is a minor, by his guardian. 21. Now the question which needs to be answered is as to whether the particular incident which occurred on the fateful day, due to which the deceased died is relatable to any of the aforesaid provisions so as to confer jurisdiction on the Railway Claims Tribunal towards entertaining the claim application made by the petitioners. 22. 21. Now the question which needs to be answered is as to whether the particular incident which occurred on the fateful day, due to which the deceased died is relatable to any of the aforesaid provisions so as to confer jurisdiction on the Railway Claims Tribunal towards entertaining the claim application made by the petitioners. 22. According to the petitioners, since it was the duty of the railway administration to provide adequate security and/or level crossing gate in the particular level crossing, there was negligence on that count and thus the Railways are liable to pay compensation and accordingly the Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have entertained the claim petition submitted by the petitioners. None of the provisions referred to above are applicable to the case in hand. The Railways in their counter affidavit have categorically stated that in the unmanned level crossing in question, there was warning board adequately fixed on both the sides of the level crossing (Gate No. S.K. 46). Thus the duty cast on the railways was adequately discharged. In the case of United India Insurance Co., ( AIR 1998 SC 640 ) (supra) contributory negligence on the part of the railways was attributed in view of the fact that the caution board at the entrance of the level crossing was moth eaten and the writings thereon could not be deciphered by any one even if one was inclined to read. In the instant case, there was no such allegation on the part of the petitioners. 23. From the above, what is seen is that the Railways had discharged its statutory liability by installing warning board on both the sides of the level crossing and the deceased having ignored the said warning fell victim of the incident in which he died due to multiple injuries. Such an incident cannot be said to be railway accident and/or untoward incident within the meaning of Railways Act and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Section 124-A, on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has much emphasized itself provides that no compensation shall be provided under this Section by the railway administration, if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to the incident mentioned in the said section, one of which is his own criminal act and self-inflicted injury. 24. Section 124-A, on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has much emphasized itself provides that no compensation shall be provided under this Section by the railway administration, if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to the incident mentioned in the said section, one of which is his own criminal act and self-inflicted injury. 24. Above apart the said provision is applicable only in respect of the passenger, which has been defined in Section 2(29) of the Act as a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket. In the instant case, the deceased was not a passenger so as to claim compensation. As noticed above, Section 161 of the Railways Act debars negligence in crossing an unmanned level crossing. In case of violation of the said provision, the offence is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to one year. It is in this context the aforesaid provision in Section 124-A of the Railways Act i.e. non-admissibility of any compensation if the passenger dies due to his own criminal act, will have to be understood. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.