JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has sought for setting aside the order dated 8.6.2011 passed in O.A. No. 38/2006 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore and for such other relief. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Though compensation is awarded, liability would be there on the railway administration as per Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short the Act). The word “untoward incident” is defined under Section 123(c) of the Act. It is the case of the death of a lady who is said to have travelled in a train. The word “Untoward incident” also includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. In so far as the definition of untoward incident is concerned, it has to be accepted in relation to the incident that has occurred while travelling in the train and the body was cut into two pieces and the deceased had fell down from the train. As per the definition of the word “bonafide passenger” under Section 2(29) of the Act is concerned, it is a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. The death of the deceased in the case on hand was that of a passenger and secondly, she died in the untoward incident that occurred. Section 124 of the Act defines 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 incident. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Vinodamma & Others Vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (3) AIR Kar R 745 has referred to Section 124-A and Section 2(29) of the Act, while explaining, it is held that bonafide passenger does not prescribe that the passenger must hold a valid ticket to travel as a passenger in a particular train. 5. Union of India reported in 2010 (3) AIR Kar R 745 has referred to Section 124-A and Section 2(29) of the Act, while explaining, it is held that bonafide passenger does not prescribe that the passenger must hold a valid ticket to travel as a passenger in a particular train. 5. The Claims Tribunal, after enquiry, looking into the ticket produced on behalf of the claimants has held that the deceased was travelling in a train and due to accidental fall, she was dragged under the wheels of running train and got cut into two pieces and died. Hence, the claim petition was filed by the claimants. After enquiry, the Claims Tribunal having found that it is an untoward incident, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and the same is challenged before this Court by the appellant-Insurer, including on the ground that the deceased was not a passenger travelling with a valid pass or ticket. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer, the deceased was traveling in the evening train, but the ticket was purchased for the morning train. The decision of Vinodamma’s case is squarely made applicable only when there is a valid pass or ticket being recovered as an evidence for the day. Whether the ticket is purchased for the morning train or evening train, the same could be treated as a valid ticket for the day and the contention that the ticket was purchased for the morning train and not for the evening train does not hold any water. Accordingly, the deceased was a bonafide passenger and that she intended to travel in the train and instead of travelling in the morning for which she has purchased the ticket, she must have chosen to travel in the evening train. As per Section 124-A of the Act, the railway administration shall grant compensation when a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. This clearly envisages that the passenger was travelling with a valid ticket that she purchased for the day. As such, the ground raised by the appellant herein that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and that she was not having a valid ticket, cannot be accepted. This clearly envisages that the passenger was travelling with a valid ticket that she purchased for the day. As such, the ground raised by the appellant herein that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and that she was not having a valid ticket, cannot be accepted. The order of the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was a bonafide passenger for the day, does not require any further interference. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Amount be released in favour of the respondents/claimants within two months.