JUDGMENT : A. Hariprasad, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the Railway. 2. Aggrieved by the order passed in O.A. No. (llu)/ERS/0008/2018 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, declining the appellant's claim for compensation on account of her mother's death in an untoward incident, the claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Appellant is the daughter of deceased Parvathi Devi, who was killed in a railway accident on 5.1.2015 at 5.57 am at Mankara Railway Station in Palakkad District. The appellant contended that her deceased mother was a Government employee working in Community Health Centre. She was transferred to Melattur from Palakkad and the former place is about 75 kms away from her residence. She was finding it difficult to travel on a daily basis to Melattur. On the fateful day, she was about to proceed to Metattur from Mankara in order to find out a suitable accommodation. In Mankara Railway Station, there is no foot-over-bridge. The passengers are made to cross the track to reach the platforms situated on either side of the railway track. While deceased Parvathi Devi and her husband Sivaprakash were crossing the track to reach the other side of the railway station in order to catch a train, another express train without any indication or signal, came and knocked them down, killing both of them instantaneously. It is also submitted that the appellant's claim for compensation on account of her father's death was allowed by the Tribunal. Appellant's case is that her mother was having a valid season ticket to commute and her father had purchased a regular ticket on the fateful day to accompany her mother. 4. The Tribunal rejected the claim attributing following reasons: It looks in this case that either the applicant, or her relatives must have given, either the original seasonal pass/ticket, or its copy of the deceased either to the Police, or RPF, later on to show the bonafide of the deceased Smt. Parvathi Devi. But, had deceased carried her original seasonal pass/ticket or its photocopy etc with her, at the time of said incident, it should have been recovered, either from the spot, or from the possession of the deceased. But, had deceased carried her original seasonal pass/ticket or its photocopy etc with her, at the time of said incident, it should have been recovered, either from the spot, or from the possession of the deceased. Although the applicant during her statement on oath has stated about one bag carried by her deceased mother, but that bag was also not recovered by the Police Officer on 5.1.2015 at the time of inquest. Merely possessing the quarterly season ticket/pass and keeping the same at residence, or some-where else, and not carrying with her, at the time of her alleged journey, and while she was crossing the Railway track, and had got hit by the train, does not qualify her under the category of bonafide passenger, as defined under the Railways Act. So from the statement of the applicant, and a careful perusal of inquest report, it is clearly revealed out that, no journey ticket/season ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased, or from the spot, while other personal articles like broken Nokia Mobile phone, towel, clothes and bangles etc. had been recovered during the inquest. So, based on above inferences and evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that she was not a bonafide passenger, at the time of her alleged journey/presence at Mankara Railway Station on that fateful day. So, this issue is answered against the applicant, and in favour of the opposite party/respondent. Thereafter the Tribunal reasoned out that the claim of the appellant is not supported by section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 (in short, the Act). 5. 'Untoward incident', according to Section 123 (c) of the Act, reads thus: 1 (i) The commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 6. 6. The finding of the Tribunal that merely procuring a quarterly season ticket/pass and keeping the same at residence and not carrying with the passenger will not make her entitled to claim any relief, cannot be sustained. The assumption of the Tribunal, that the ticket was not recovered from the mutilated body of deceased Parvathi Devi, is also hyper technical. 7. It is the case of the appellant that a copy of the season ticket was obtained from the police officers who conducted an inquest on the body of deceased Parvathi Devi. It may be too technical to insist that the entire documents must be recovered soon after the gruesome accident and nothing produced by the law enforcing agency later cannot be considered and it is beyond comprehension. Therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal is not only hyper technical, but also unrealistic. 8. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellant, being the legal heir of Parvathi Devi, who died in an untoward incident on 05.1.2015 at 5.57 am at Mankara Station shall be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs from the respondent Railway. 9. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.