JUDGMENT 1. Learned Advocate Mr. Suresh Kumar states that he has been instructed to appear for the Railway and undertakes to file Vakalatnama within one week, and states that he is ready for hearing of the appeal. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shrishailya Deshmukh, for the Appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent and perused impugned Judgment, pleadings and the evidence. 3. The Railway Tribunal was hearing Application no.411 of 2005. The claim pertains to compensation on account of untoward incident in relation to the death of Mr. Rajesh Shivram Sawant, son of the Applicant. 4. It was pleaded by the claimant that the deceased who was a bonafide passenger of the Railway (Local), and fell down on while travelling in local train and succumbed to the falling and injuries on the spot. 5. The claim petition was opposed by the Railway. In the written statement the denial reads as follows: “At the further outset the respondents state the incident as alleged by the applicant is neither an untoward incident nor the same is accidental falling from the running train as contemplated under section 123(c) of the Railway Act. The Respondents state that as per D.R.M.'s Report the deceased was traveling on the foot board of train and misbalanced and fell down from the train and therefore, the deceased was responsible for the alleged incident as he was careless and negligent and also has deliberately chosen to travel on the footboard which is prohibited and is also an offence. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit-“R-1” is D.R.M.'s Report. 6. In so far as aspect of bonafide status of the deceased being bonafide passenger is concerned, the averments in the written statement reads as follows: “At the further outset, this respondents state that as per D.R.M.'s Report, the deceased is stated to be a bonafide passenger.” 7. The Tribunal did not find favour with the applicant and dismissed the same. The dismissal was based on findings as follows:- i) That the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. (finding recorded in paragraph no.5.) ii) That the death was not on account of untoward incident. (finding recorded in paragraph no.5). 8. The Claimant filed Review Application before Railway Claim Tribunal on the ground that the fact finding regarding victim not being bonafide passenger was and the finding regarding untoward incident too was erroneous. (finding recorded in paragraph no.5.) ii) That the death was not on account of untoward incident. (finding recorded in paragraph no.5). 8. The Claimant filed Review Application before Railway Claim Tribunal on the ground that the fact finding regarding victim not being bonafide passenger was and the finding regarding untoward incident too was erroneous. Said Review Petition No.6 of 2009 was heard and dismissed by the Tribunal by Judgment and Order dated 31st May, 2010. 9. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, however, declined to review its Judgment on the another finding that death was on account of untoward incident, was a question of fact and could not be available for review, since the Tribunal could not and did not act as an Appellate Authority over own order. 10. Heard both sides, perused the respective pleadings and evidence on record. 11. It is seen from the admissions contained in the written statement in paragraph no.3, that the question as to whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger was not open for any scrutiny being an admitted fact. 12. Now the finding which is to be scrutinized by this Court is as to whether the death falls in the compass of term untoward incident on which the Tribunal held against the appellant. This Court has perused the definition of the term “untoward incident”. It is seen that it is not proved by the Railways that case falls within the exceptions. Therefore, now it is not open to the Railways to dispute that the death had occurred due to the untoward incident. 13. The Tribunal was bound to give findings based on principles of law. The question as to whether the deceased was travelling immediately before the accident occurred and while he was in journey accident took place, is not in dispute. 14. In the result the Judgment and Order of the Tribunal passed originally and later passed in Review Application both are erroneous and deserve to be modified. 15. In the result Appeal succeeds. The same is allowed. The applicant is entitled and shall be paid compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four lacs Only) with interest thereon at the rate of 6% from the date of Application till recovery of the full amount with costs.