( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed by the Railway Claims tribunal, Bangalore, whereby Original Application No. 10/1998 under S. 124-A of the railways Act, 1989, for payment of compensation has been dismissed.

( 2 ) THE appellant who happens to be the mother of late Sri. Jagadish filed an application under S. 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, before the Tribunal for payment of compensation on account of the death of her son in an untoward incident that occurred while the deceased was travelling on passenger Train No. 284/a between Bhadravathi to Bangalore. The applicants case in the claim petition was that the deceased had purchased a ticket at Bhadravathi station and boarded the train at 11. 15 p. m. for bangalore. Since the railway compartment was heavily crowded, he fell off due to a jerk somewhere on the way resulting in his death. The respondent-Union of India contested the claim on several grounds. It was contended that the deceased was travelling on the foot board in a state of intoxication and had fallen off from the same between the two railway stations mentioned above resulting in his death. The case according to the respondents, therefore, fell within the purview of proviso (d) to Section 124-A of the amended railways Act, 1989.

( 3 ) IN support of her case, the claimantappellant stepped into the witness box apart from examining AW-2 Shantharaju. The respondents examined five witnesses in support of their version apart from placing reliance upon Ex. R-l to Ex. R-3. By its order d/- 8-10-1998, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger on the train aforementioned nor was any ticket produced by the claimant-appellant in support of her claim that he was. The Tribunal observed that there was material to suggest that the deceased was in a state of intoxication with the result that the incident involving his death could not be said to be an untoward incident within the meaning of section 124-A. The claim petition was on the above findings dismissed, hence the present appeal.

( 4 ) APPEARING for the appellant, Mr. Thirthappa, contended that the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the deceased being a passenger on the train was contrary to the weight of evidence on record. He urged that the material on record sufficiently established that the deceased was indeed a passenger travelling on Train No. 284/a between Bhadravathi and Bangalore and that he had died because of his falling off the train somewhere on the way. He further contended that the observation made by the Tribunal that the deceased was intoxicated at the time of the accident was without any basis whatsoever, and so was the inference that he had fallen off the train on account of the alleged intoxication. The claimant was according to the learned counsel entitled to payment of compensation of rs. 4 lakhs even when on the date of the accident, the stipulated amount was restricted to only Rs. 2 lakhs. The decision of the Supreme Court in Rathi Menon v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 1333, was called in aid by the learned counsel to urge that the benefit of the subsequent amendment to the Act stipulating a higher amount of compensation to victims was available even in cases where the accident had taken place prior to the amendment. What was important argued the learned counsel was the date of determination of the claim and not the date on which the accident had taken place.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondent, it was contended by Mr. Sanjay Gowda, that the tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger on the train. He urged that in the absence of a valid ticket issued for the journey undertaken by the deceased, the question of his being a bona fide passenger did not arise. No such ticket having been produced by the appellant, the deceased could not be said to be a bona fide passenger nor could any incident involving