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