JUDGMENT : S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J. 1. The applicants in O.A.No.24/2007 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, have come up in this appeal impugning the judgment dated 9.9.2009 in rejecting their claim application seeking compensation for the death of Chikkanahalli Mahaboob Basha Alias Basha Sab in an untoward incident. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:- The appellants herein are the applicants in O.A.No.24/2007. The averments in the claim application would disclose that the applicants are widow, mother and two minor children of deceased Chikkanahalli Mahaboob Basha Alias Basha Sab (hereinafter referred to as ‘Basha Sab’), who died in an accident involving Train No.1017, Bangalore – Kurla Express. According to applicants, deceased Basha Sab was traveling from Haveri to Davanagere as passenger in train No.588. When he was traveling in said train, the said train had halted at Harihara Railway Station for passing of Bangalore – Kurla express. At that time, due to congestion in the compartment of train he fell down on line No.2 resulting in injuries to his head, to which he succumbed later. In that behalf, OA.No.24/2007 was filed by the legal representatives of deceased Basha Sab seeking compensation for his death on the ground that the accident is caused due to untoward incident which has taken place while he was traveling in aforesaid passenger train. As such, they are entitled to compensation from respondent-South Western Railways. 3. In the proceedings before tribunal, the respondent Union of India took up a contention that the death of Basha Sab is not due to an untoward incident as contemplated under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. On the contrary, it is due to the act of negligence on the part of deceased, resulting in severe injuries, to which he succumbed later. 4. In the proceedings before tribunal, after the pleadings were complete, evidence was recorded. On behalf of applicants, wife of deceased – applicant No.1 was examined as AW.1. In addition to that another person by name Dr.G.Shivaprakash, Medical Officer of Bapuji Hospital, Davangere, was examined as AW.2. He gave evidence with reference to treatment that is given to deceased at Bapuji Hospital immediately after the accident and produced the medical records in that behalf. In support of their case, the applicants have produced and marked in all nine documents at Exs.A1 to A9. He gave evidence with reference to treatment that is given to deceased at Bapuji Hospital immediately after the accident and produced the medical records in that behalf. In support of their case, the applicants have produced and marked in all nine documents at Exs.A1 to A9. (a) The respondent – railways in support of its defence examined RW.1 – Station Master, Davanagere Railway Station, RW.2 – Station Master, Harihara Railway Station and produced and marked four documents at Exs.R1 to R4. 5. The tribunal on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to dismiss the claim application of appellants herein on the ground that the death of Basha Sab is not due to accidental fall from the train as contemplated under Section 123(c)(2) and Section 124A of the Railways Act. On the contrary, it is due to his negligence as seen under Proviso (b) to 124A, of the Railways Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants in OA.No.24/2007 have come up in this appeal. 6. The learned Counsel Sri.Malvi appearing for the appellants tried to impress upon this Court that accident, which has taken place on 6.8.2006 does not have any eyewitness either on behalf of the applicants or on behalf of the respondent – Union of India, represented by General Manager of South Western Railway, Hubli. Therefore, whatever the material that has come on record is erroneous, inasmuch as they do not depict the accident, which has taken place resulting in the death of Basha Sab and the same is required to be considered from the point of pleadings as could be seen in the claim application. 7. Now coming to the material available on record, the recording of incident by Station Master, Harihara Railway station, who is RW.2 in the proceedings before tribunal is that, he received certain information on 6.8.2006 that a person, who was trying to cross line No.2 on which there was passing of Bangalore Kurla Express, met with an accident resulting in grievous injuries, which was informed to him by Railway Police. Immediately, he instructed them to shift said person to Hospital, where it is stated that the injured is said to have succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. 8. Immediately, he instructed them to shift said person to Hospital, where it is stated that the injured is said to have succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. 8. After going through the records, it is seen that on ill-fated day viz., 6.8.2006, there was only one accident, which had taken place in the evening hours involving Bangalore Kurla express bearing No.1017, which was proceeding towards Bombay. That means the incident which is referred to by the Station Master, Harihara, is the accident in which deceased Basha Sab was injured. It is seen that thereafter, an enquiry is conducted through Davanagere Railway Police, who have submitted their report. (a) It is seen that the report submitted by Davanagere Railway Police would clearly indicate that a person, by name Chikkanahalli Mahaboob Basha Alias Basha Sab, was a bonafide passenger of train bearing No.588, which was proceeding from Haveri to Davanagere; it was stopped at Harihara Railway Station; when said train was halted at Harihara Railway station on line No.1 to enable the crossing of Bangalore Kurla Express on line No.2, as said train being an express train had priority of line for crossing, said Basha Sab got down from train No.588 and while attempting to cross line No.2, he is said to have hit by the Express train. (b) The report of Davanagere Railway Police corroborate with the statement recorded by the Station Master, Harihara Railway Station and as well as the statement given by the mother of deceased, who is second applicant before the tribunal, wherein she has also stated the accident as having taken place in the same manner in which it is recorded by the Station Master, Harihara Railway Station as well as the person, who has submitted the report to Railways. (c) When the statement of Station Master, mother of deceased and the report of Railway police corroborate with each other and they are on the basis of information, which is gathered immediately after the accident has taken place, the same is rightly believed by the learned member of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, for the reason that as against the information that is provided, the averments made in the claim application are totally different. Wherein, at column 7 of the claim application it is stated that the deceased, who was a bona-fide passenger having journey ticket bearing No. 33232434 was traveling from Haveri to Davanagere in train No.588; when said train was stationed at Harihara Railway Station, there was heavy rush in the compartment in which he was traveling and due to commotion in compartment as well as unwieldy crowd, he fell down and suffered injuries, which is tried to be asserted as an untoward incident. (d) Assuming for a moment, if the accident has taken place in the manner in which it is stated in column 7 of the application before the tribunal, then definitely it should be considered as an accident caused due to an untoward incident and the claimants would be entitled to seek compensation as provided under the Railways Act. But, in the instant case, the averments made in column 7 of the claim application is totally contrary to the material available on record, which otherwise demonstrate that the accident has taken place while Basha Sab was attempting to cross line No.2 at Harihara Railway Station, on which there was crossing of Bangalore Kurla Express. Thereby, indicating that the averments made in column 7 of the claim application is nothing but a statement of convenience inserted into the application, which is totally inconsistent with other material available on record indicating the manner in which the accident has taken place. Since sufficient time had elapsed from the date of accident till date of filing of application before the Tribunal, the manner in which accident has taken place is conveniently explained by applicants so as to bring it within the definition of untoward incident as contemplated under the Railways Act, probably with an intention to ensure that compensation is awarded to applicants, who are legal heirs of deceased Basha Sab. 9. On going through the material available on record, this Court would like to place on record that the appellants herein, who are applicants before the Tribunal seeking compensation, cannot be found fault with. However, awarding compensation to them is subject to their entitlement under the Act. The Act is very clear. Section 124-A of the Act deals with the rights of parties to seek compensation for injuries suffered or death in an untoward incident arising while traveling in the train. However, awarding compensation to them is subject to their entitlement under the Act. The Act is very clear. Section 124-A of the Act deals with the rights of parties to seek compensation for injuries suffered or death in an untoward incident arising while traveling in the train. What is untoward incident is also defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. No doubt, a bona-fide passenger traveling in a train, if he meets with an accident and suffers injury or dies, then he or his family members are entitled to seek compensation for the injuries or death caused in the said accident. However, the same is subject to the provisions which regulate their claim. There are several judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches, Division Benches as well as Apex Court recognizing such claims and awarding compensation. But none of those judgments would support the suppression of manner in which the accident has taken place and then depicting the same to bring it within the meaning of accident/untoward incident that would entitle them to seek compensation under the provisions of the Railways Act. 10. Infact, the learned counsel for appellants tried to rely upon several judgments. First of them, is in the matter of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors., reported in 2008 Kant M.A.C. 545 (SC), wherein the fact situation which was dealt therein is with reference to a person, who fell down from the moving train and suffered injuries leading to his death. In that behalf, the right of legal heirs to receive compensation was the subject matter and it is discussed at length whether it is from the moving train or falling down from the train while it was about to move. But it does not deal with a situation where accident has taken place when the deceased was trying to cross the line and that was not the subject matter in said judgment, which clearly comes under Section 124-A, proviso (b) of the Act viz., selfinflicting injury. (a) Here, in the instant case, the deceased is an adult, capable of understanding the consequences of trying to cross the line when there is crossing of a train on said line, where he is expected to take all precautions and should wait until the train would pass through said line and thereafter to cross the line. (a) Here, in the instant case, the deceased is an adult, capable of understanding the consequences of trying to cross the line when there is crossing of a train on said line, where he is expected to take all precautions and should wait until the train would pass through said line and thereafter to cross the line. Instead, even before the train could pass through the line, an attempt is made to cross the line, resulting in injuries being caused to him and subsequently leading to his death. Therefore, the fact situation in the present case has no relevance to the facts in the aforesaid judgment cited by the learned counsel for appellants. 11. Similar is the situation in the matter of Jameela & Ors. vs. Union of India, reported in 2010 (3) KLT 882. In this judgment also scope of Section 123(c)(2) and 124A, provisos (a) to (e) are discussed. In the instant case, the relevant proviso that is attracted being Section 124A Proviso (b), considering the claim under Section 124(A) read with Section 123(c)(2) of the Act does not arise. 12. In addition to aforesaid two judgments, other two judgments are also cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, which are as under:- (i) Unreported judgment in MFA.No.9596/2008 connected with M.F.A.No.6303/2009 disposed of on 18.7.2012 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court; (ii) In the matter of Guri Behera & Ors. Vs. D.R.M. East Coast Railway, Khurda & Ors., reported in 2011 (1) ILR-Cut 471. 13. After going through the aforesaid judgments with reference to fact situation, this Court find that none of them would support the case of appellants that even when injuries are caused due to hit by a train while crossing the line should also be considered under Section 124A read with Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, for the reason that said Section encompasses all possible manners in which an accident takes place and the same should be brought under strict liability clause and compensation should be awarded. However, that is not the tenor of any of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, which are cited by the learned counsel for appellants. 14. However, that is not the tenor of any of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, which are cited by the learned counsel for appellants. 14. Assuming for a moment, if the line of argument of appellants is accepted and any accident which takes place within the precincts of Railway Station is considered as if it is an accident/untoward incident, which gives room for seeking compensation under Section 123(c)(2) of the Act, inasmuch as Section 124A encompasses all nature of accidents causing either injury or death should be compensated under strict liability, then there was no need to the explanation as provided under Section 124A(a) to (e) or restricting it to 123(c)(2) of the Act. Though such line of argument appeals to this Court, but, however, it is contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore, considering that would be contrary to the statutory obligation under the Railways Act extending a blanket coverage to all kinds of injuries suffered in any accident within the precincts of Railway Station and bringing them under Section 124A of the Railways Act as bona-fide passenger and awarding compensation would be catastrophic in nature, which cannot be accepted. Infact, that was not the intention of either this Court or Apex Court at any point of time. 15. It is seen that where ever liberal views are taken and opinions are expressed by the Apex Court and Division Benches of this Court, the same is relied upon and attempted to be stated as ratio decidendi laid in said judgments, which is not acceptable. The opinions so expressed would not amount to ratio decidendi and they do not partake the nature of law stated in said judgments, hence, it cannot be followed. In that view of the matter, in the instant case, though this Court feel the pain of applicants and feel their attempt to seek compensation requires consideration, there is no scope for considering such claim since it falls under Section 124A, proviso (b) of the Act. Therefore, this Court cannot take a liberal view contrary to the provisions of law and award compensation. Consequently, this Court is constrained to accept the reasoning given by the Tribunal and accordingly, this appeal is required to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by appellants in O.A.No.24/2007 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, is dismissed.