P. Somarajan, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.12.2016 in OA(II-U) 60/2015 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, the applicants came up with this appeal mainly on the reason that their application for compensation was rejected on the ground of intoxication, which is one of the exceptions attached to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. First of all, we are constrained to make some comments regarding the impugned judgment. Nowhere it is stated in the judgment, whether any evidence was adduced, either documentary or oral. It is also not discussed anywhere in the judgment, what is the probative value or the legal impact of evidence, if any, adduced by the parties, either oral or documentary, and how far it is relevant to the question to be adjudicated in the application. It is also not mentioned, what actually amounts to the expression "intoxication" as envisaged under the exception to Section 124-A of the Railways Act. It is also not clear, on what basis a finding was rendered by the Tribunal that the alleged accident happened due to intoxication. Going by the judgment, it is clear that the report submitted by DRM (Divisional Railway Manager) was accepted by the Tribunal without examination of the said person or any person under him, who had investigated the cause of incident, as a witness. It is also not clear why no opportunity was given to the applicants to adduce evidence or to establish their case. All these basic principles were overlooked by the Tribunal and dismissed the application in a clandestine manner, which is legally not sustainable.

3. Section 124A of the Railways Act is a beneficial provision resting on the principle of no-fault liability. The exceptions attached to the said section have to be understood under the context in which that section was enacted. In other words, exceptions attached to section 124A have to be understood as exceptions carved out against the application of strict liability viz. no-fault liability incorporated therein. The expression "intoxication" stands for drunkenness, inebriation, insobriety due to influence of consumption of alcohol or by the user of drugs. Mere consumption of alcohol will not bring a person within the exception "intoxication" unless the ingredients which constitute the exception "intoxication" are brought out. "Intoxication" stands for something which would affect the balance of the person considerably so that he could not maintain himself or to safeguard himself due to the influence of alcohol or drugs. Mere consumption of alcohol or liquor is not at all sufficient to bring a person under the exception of "intoxication". The rate of alcohol found in the blood at the time of alleged incident, whether he is a drunkard or a person who is taking liquor frequently, are relevant factors to be taken into account so as to ascertain the extent of influence on account of consumption of alcohol or drugs.

4. At this juncture, it assumes importance to the penal provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in driving a vehicle by a drunken person, which is extracted below for reference:

"185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs.- Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle,-

(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml, of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or

(b) is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second of subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both."

5. The expression "drunkenness" or "intoxication" is not incorporated or engra