The court emphasized the need for a proper framing of issues and a fresh decision on the applicability of legal provisions and the quantum of compensation.

S.S.Sudhalkar, J.

1. Respondents had filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench being case No.QA-II/67/1997 for death of Rajinder Kumar husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 and 3. The claim was allowed by the Tribunal and Rs. 2,00,000/- was awarded as, compensation. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by the appellants.

2. The case of the respondents is that Rajinder Kumar met with an accident while travelling in Inter City Train which was on its way to Rohtak-Jind from Delhi-Bahadurgarh on 22.9.96 to 3.13 p.m. It was stated that the deceased was hit by pole (signal) which was quite adjacent to the railway line and due to its situation many accidents occurred at that place. The deceased received fatal injuries because of the accident and hence a petition was filed for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

3. Upon notice being served, the appellants had filed written statement in which they have denied that the deceased died in a train accident. It is further contended that the alleged incident was not a train accident within the meaning of Section 124/124-A of the Railway Act. It is also contended that the signal was affixed as per schedule of dimensions. It is also denied that many accidents had taken place due to the said signal as alleged. It is contended that the alleged accident was self invited one and the deceased died due to his own criminal act. It is also denied that the signal was closed to the railway line and hence the respondents are not entitled to the compensation. The other contentions were also taken, such as, the deceased was not bona fide passenger etc.

4. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of accident in question? OPA

2. Whether the accident in question falls within the purview of Section 124/124A of the Railway Act, 1989? OPA

3. To what amount of compensation, if any, the applicants are entitled to get from the respondent railways? OPA.

4. Relief.

5. The Tribunal answered issues No.l to 3 in the affirmative and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased was bona fide passenger. It is in defence of the respondents that Ticket Checker had come in the compartment and had checked the ticket of the deceased. It is not shown by the appellants that this contention could not be correct. The Tribunal has held that the appellants had not adduced any evidence that the Ticket Checker was not travelling in the said train for the purpose of checking tickets and has held that the case put forth by the appellants was not correct. In view of the reasons given by the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to assailed the finding given by the Tribunal. Hence I do not find it proper to disturb the finding given on issue No.1 by the learned Tribunal.

8. So far as issue No.2 is concerned, the question is whether the accident falls within the purview of Section 124 or 124-Aof the Act. Section 124 of the Act reads as under:-

"124. Extent of liability:-

when in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one train 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 entitled 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 not with standing 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 res