The main legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective application of the amended provisions of the Railway Act, particularly Section 124-A, and its impact on the eligibility for compensation in cases of accidents and untoward incidents.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. Singharavelu, J. - This appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, a 1987 (for short, "the Act") has been filed by the appellant/respondents against the award of a statutory compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- passed on 16-8-1996 in O.A. No. 102 of 1995 u/s 13(i)(a)(ii) read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, on the allegation that respective husband and father (one individual) of the claimants while travelling in the train as bona fide passenger (206 Down Bhadrak-Kharagpur local train) died on 19-12-1990 when the train involved in an accident at Sabira Railway Station.

2. Upon condoning the delay in filing the original application and also upon perusal of the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants the Tribunal originally had divergent opinion between the members and ultimately the case of the claimants was upheld and compensation was awarded when the matter was subsequently referred to a 3rd judicial member of Secundarabad Bench.

I have heard the learned Counsel of either side on the following question of law besides other points:

(a) Whether Section 124 of the Act is prospective or retrospective in operation?

(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ingredients of Section 124-A have been satisfied in this case?

3. The Railways Amendment Act, 1994 (Act 28 of 1994) provided amendments to Section 123 and insertion of a new Section 124-A. The amendment received the assent of the President only on 26-4-1994; whereas the accident of this case occurred on 19-12-1990 long before the said assent. So the question arises as to the prospective nature of effect of amendment.

4. Prior to the amendment the extent of the liability of the Railway was provided in Section 124 in the following words:

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.

5. Similarly, prior to the amendment Section 123(a) defined accident as one of the nature described in Section 124; thus, prior to amendment Section 124 continued the description of the term accident as well as the extent of consequential liability of the Railway. In fact, as per the said provision that was restricted to accident as a result of collision between trains or the derailment of or other accidents to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers.

6. In fact, a fall from the train could not be held as due to any accident to a train as envisaged in Section 124 of the Act. The only lever that was given u/s 124 of the Act for accident without derailment or collision was the word "all other accident to a train". In fact, it was held by interpreting u/s 124 in the judgment of a case law in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Sunil Kumar Ghosh that if a passenger tumble inside the compartment or stepping out of the compartment, it cannot be said that an accident has occurred to the train or a part of the train. It may be doubtless an accident to the passenger but not to the train; what was contemplated u/s 124 was only "all other accident to a train" and not accident to the passenger.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case considered the identical e