JUDGMENT : 1. Sri Arnab Banerji has appeared for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 123 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order dated 27.2.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the claim of the claimants appellants has been rejected. 3. It appears that one Pintoo Patel died while travelling in train whereupon the claimants appellants preferred the above claim petition. 4. The claim petition has been rejected on the ground that the death is not due to any accident or untoward incident which may entitle the claimants appellants for any compensation under the Act. 5. It is admitted on record that the deceased was travelling in a train from Baroda to Gorakhpur. He became unconscious at Tundala Junction, may be for the reason that he was administered poison by some gang. At Tundala he was taken to the hospital where he expired. Thus, the death of the deceased occurred due to poisoning while he was travelling in a train. 6. Section 124-A read with Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for payment of compensation on account of untoward incident and the extent of liability of the Railways in the case of accident. 7. The 'accident' has been defined under Section 123 (a) of the Act to mean an accident of the nature described under Section 124 of the Act. The said provision only speaks about the accident due to collusion between the trains and as such the cause of death due to food poisoning while travelling in a train will not fall under the aforesaid provision. 8. The "untoward incident" has been defined under Section 123 (c) of the Act to mean apart from other things indulging in rioting, shootout or arson or the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 9. Thus, the cause of death of the deceased is not even covered by the definition of "untoward incident" as aforesaid. 10. Section 124-A of the Act provides for payment of compensation on account of "untoward incident" and Section 124 of the Act lays down the extent of liability in the case of an accident. Both the above provisions do not get attracted in the instant case as the cause of death of the deceased is not covered within the definition of the 'accident' or "untoward incident." 11. Both the above provisions do not get attracted in the instant case as the cause of death of the deceased is not covered within the definition of the 'accident' or "untoward incident." 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the claimants appellants were not entitle to maintain any claim petition for the death of the deceased on account of food poisoning while travelling in train. Thus, the tribunal has not erred in rejecting the claim petition. 12. The appeal as such has no merit and is dismissed.