Narayan Shukla, Anant Kumar, J. - (1.) The appellants have claimed to be parents of the deceased Sanjay who died in accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was a valid ticket holder and while he was waiting for boarding on train at the side of railway track, due to air pressure of the running train i.e. Gwalior Mail the deceased fell down on the track of the train and received injuries. On account of which he succumbed to death. Such an accident is covered under the definition untoward incident as defined in Section 123 (c). Therefore, the respondents are liable to compensate his death to the claimants, it has been submitted that Railway Claim Tribunal has failed to appreciate the facts of the case correctly and has dismissed the Appellants claim on the ground that since neither the deceased was travelling in train nor was boarding on train when the accident took place, therefore, such accident is not covered under the definition untoward incident as has been defined in Section 123 (2).
(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the following decision in support of the appellants claim.
(3.) In Union of India v. Ahalya Prusti and another 2010 (4) T.A.C. 687 (Ori.) the word accident to train all other accident to train scope of the word had been considered and it was held that the Supreme Court by interpreting under Section 124 in the judgment in Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh, 1984 A.C.J. 719 (S.C.) held that if a passenger tumbles inside the compartment or stepping train or part of the train. It may be doubtless, an accident to the passenger but not to the train, what was contemplated under Section 124 was only all other accident to a train ad not accident to the passenger.;