JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri M.M. Barbate, Advocate for the appellants and Ms. Sweta S. Hanvante, Advocate for the respondent. 2. ADMIT. 3. As record and proceedings are received and considering the nature of controversy, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 4. This appeal is filed by the original claimants (husband and son of deceased) to challenge the award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal by which the claim petition filed by them under Section 124A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Act of 1989”) is dismissed. 5. It is not in dispute that Babybai (victim) travelled as a bona fide passenger from Gondia to Chacher by Gondia Nagpur Local MEMU train on a valid journey ticket. The facts on record show that the victim got down from the train at Chacher and attempted to cross the railway line and was run over by the goods train. The claim of the claimants is that there is no facility at Chacher railway station for the passengers to cross railway line and footbridge is not provided. 6. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition recording that the victim suffered injuries which proved to be fatal, in an accident which cannot be said to an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989. 7. After examining the matter and hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, I find that the following point arises for consideration: (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in recording that the claimants have not been able to establish that Babybai died because of the injuries suffered by her in an “untoward incident” as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989. 8. The claimants have not disputed that Babybai was hit by fast moving passenger train when she attempted to cross railway line after deboarding from the passenger train. The contention of the claimants is that Babybai was required to cross the railway line at Chacher railway station as there is no footbridge which can be used by the passengers to move from one platform to other platform and the passengers have no other option but to cross the railway line to move from one platform to other platform. The contention of the claimants is that Babybai was required to cross the railway line at Chacher railway station as there is no footbridge which can be used by the passengers to move from one platform to other platform and the passengers have no other option but to cross the railway line to move from one platform to other platform. The Advocate for the appellants has submitted that as footbridge is not constructed to facilitate the movement of bona fide passengers from one platform to other platform and as the bona fide passengers are required to cross the railway line, it is negligence on the part of the railways and in the circumstances, the claimants are entitled for compensation. To support the submission, reliance is placed on the judgment given by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in M.A. No.5/2015 (Smt. Rajwinder Kaor and others Vs. Union of India) delivered on 21st November, 2016 and the judgment given in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 . 9. The learned Advocate for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. 10. As far as the facts are concerned, they are not disputed by either parties. The judgment given in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others (supra) does not assist the appellants as in that case, victim had fallen from moving train and this is considered as an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989. The judgment given in M.A. No.5/2015 (Smt. Rajwinder Kaor and others Vs. Union of India) supports the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, however, I am not able to convince myself to agree with the proposition laid down in the said judgment. It is well settled that the Tribunals are creature of Statutes and have the jurisdiction to deal with the matters as per the Statute only. Under Section 124A of the Act of 1989, the Tribunal is conferred with jurisdiction to examine whether the Union of India/Railways are liable to pay compensation to the victim or claimants in case the victim suffers injury in an “untoward incident”. Section 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989 reads as follows: “Section 123 Definitions. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) …...... (b) …...... (c) “untoward incident” means- (1)(i) …...... (ii) …...... (iii) …...... Section 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989 reads as follows: “Section 123 Definitions. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) …...... (b) …...... (c) “untoward incident” means- (1)(i) …...... (ii) …...... (iii) …...... (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”. The provisions of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989 are clear and unambiguous and as per this provision only accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers will fall within the meaning of “untoward incident”. The Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to examine the entitlement of the claimants in case, the victim dies because of injuries suffered by her if she is run over or hit by a train when she attempted to cross railway line. The claimants may have a case for compensation against the Union of India/Railways on the ground that footbridge is not provided to facilitate the movement of the passengers from one platform to another platform but the issue of grant of compensation on this ground cannot fall for consideration before the Tribunal under Section 124A of the Act of 1989. 11. In the above facts, I find that the Tribunal has not committed any error of jurisdiction which necessitates interference with the impugned award. The appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.