The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the 'accident to a train' provision under S.124 of the Railways Act, 1989 and the impact of the retrospective operation of the Railway (Amendment) Act 28 of 1994 on the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal.

Thomas, J.

The tragedy which visited a young bachelor in his twenties was so devastating that he turned into a paraplegic in a trice. He sustained an injury on his "conus medullaris" (inner portion of spinal cord at the lumbar region) in a fall from a stationary train and he is afflicted with what the doctors in Apollo Hospital (Madras) described as "meningocoele". He claimed compensation from the Railway administration, but the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short "the Claims Tribunal') dismissed his application on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain it. This appeal is filed by him under S.23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short "the Claims Tribunal Act').

2. The tragic journey of the appellant was on 26-7-1988. He boarded the train (Mangalore-Madras mail) at Calicut with his destination as Pattambi. As he was alighting from the train when it reached Pattambi railway station, he slipped down from the train as there was a jolt or jerk and fell into the space beneath the platform and got jammed between. He was carried to the Government Hospital, Pattambi, and there from to different hospitals situated in Kerala and outside. He is now practically an immovable living person and seems to be so for the rest of his life. He claimed compensation from the respondent in a sum of two lakhs rupees.

3. Respondent admitted that appellant fell down from the train, but contended that here was no jerk to the train. His fall was attributed to his own negligence.

4. Appellant was examined on commission. A doctor, who treated him, was examined as P.W.2. A teacher, who witnessed the fall, was examined as P.W.3. Respondent did not adduce any evidence. After closing the evidence, the Claims Tribunal heard arguments and passed the impugned order on 11-10-1991.

5. Claims Tribunal took the view that appellant's tall from the train was not due to any "accident to a train" as envisaged in S.124 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short "the Railways Act') and hence the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. In order to maintain an application under S.125 of the Railways Act before the Claims Tribunal, the applicant should have sustained the injury in an "accident to a train". As per S.123 of the Railways Act accident means "an accident of the nature described in S.124 of the Railways Act." The said description is the following:

"124. Extent of liability.- When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train sustained as a result of such accident."

In this case there was no collision between the trains, nor any derailment of a train. So the only limb of the section to which the appellant could possibly have clung then was "or other accident to a train". But with the pronouncement of the judgment in Union of India v. Sunil Kumar (AIR 1984 SC 1737) appellant could not come within the purview of the said part of the provision. Supreme Court considered the identical expression "accident to a train" in S.82-A of the Railways Act, 1890 which corresponds to the present S.124 of the Railways Act. Relevant portion of the said judgment is the following:

"But a jolt