Judgment :- The unsuccessful plaintiffs filed this appeal against the judgment in O.S. No.127 of 2004 dated 11-10-2006 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. 2. Plaintiff No.1 is the husband of the deceased Peddapally Bhagyalakshmi and plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are their children. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively before the trial Court, are South Central Railway, Secunderabad and the Government of India, New Delhi. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The case of the plaintiffs is that on 02-07-2003, while the deceased Bhagyalakshmi was selling fish near railway under-bridge, Warangal, some of the compartments (bhogies) of Golconda Express (Train No.7201) fell down from the railway bridge and one of the compartments fell on the deceased crushing her to death on the spot. Plaintiff No.1 claims that he has been suffering from several ailments and unable to attend any work, and therefore, his deceased wife was maintaining him and their family by selling fish. Hence, they claimed a sum of Rs.5,65,000/-towards compensation on account of the death of the deceased. 5. The case of defendant No.1 – South Central Railway is that as per the list of casualties of Golconda Express, which involved in the accident on 02-07-2003, the name of the deceased is mentioned and her age is noted as F-42, and therefore, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-was paid to her family as ex-gratia by the railways, as such, the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit against the defendants. 6. Since defendant No.1 has admitted that the deceased died due to fall of a railway compartment of Golconda Express on her, there is no dispute about the accident in question. 7. However, the trial Court, before entering into the merits of the case, while deciding the issue ‘whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit’, came to a conclusion that the appropriate forum for claiming compensation by the plaintiffs is the Railway Claims Tribunal but not the Civil Court, as such, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and accordingly dismissed the suit. 8. 8. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, plaintiffs preferred this appeal, inter alia, contending that the trial Court ought to have seen that unless and until the dispute/accident falls under Section 124 of the Railways Act 1989, the Railway Claims Tribunal can entertain the application for compensation and since the deceased was not a passenger of the train that involved in the accident, the trial Court, which is a Civil Court, has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for compensation against the railways. 9. It is the case of the plaintiffs – appellants that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiffs for compensation since the deceased was not a passenger of the train that met with an accident, and that, the Railway Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same 10. A perusal of Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 also clearly reveals that railway administration is under obligation to compensate the victims of an accident or untoward incident, even if there is no negligence on its part, but it is confined and restricted to bona fide passengers of the railways only who are injured and to their dependents if the passengers die in a railway accident. Thus, the Tribunal is not conferred with the jurisdiction to entertain the claims of non-passengers or their dependents, even if the injury or death was on account of railway accident. 11. Admittedly, the deceased was not a passenger on the train – Golconda Express that involved in the accident on 02-07-2003 as it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that while the deceased was selling fish near the railway under-bridge, Warangal, some of the compartments of the train fell down at that place and one of the compartments fell on her causing her instantaneous death. Defendant No.1 also admits that deceased died in the said accident and railways paid Rs.1,00,000/-towards ex gratia to her family. 12. In view of the above, as the deceased was not a passenger on the train that involved in the accident, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appropriate forum for claiming compensation by the plaintiffs due to the death of the deceased in an accident involving railways, is the Civil Court but not Railway Claims Tribunal. 12. In view of the above, as the deceased was not a passenger on the train that involved in the accident, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appropriate forum for claiming compensation by the plaintiffs due to the death of the deceased in an accident involving railways, is the Civil Court but not Railway Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the plaintiffs, who are dependants on the deceased, for compensation for the death of the deceased in an accident involving railways. 13. In similar cases in C.M.A. Nos.567, 572 and 795 of 2006 dated 07-10-2009, this Court found that the Railway Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claims of non-passengers, who met with accidents involving railways. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment in O.S. No.127 of 2004 dated 11-10-2006 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, is set aside and the suit is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. With the above observations and directions, the Appeal Suit is allowed. No order as to costs.