The main legal point established is the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal based on the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the negligence of the railway in starting the train, and the rejection of the challenge to the claim based on limitation.

( 1 ) UNION of India has filed the present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, aggrieved by award dated 24-3-1999 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in O. A. No. 424/97.

( 2 ) THE Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation to the respondent/claimant for amputation of her left arm above elbow. Mulko Bai had met with an accident on 17-5-1991 when she fell down from a train at Sanchi Railway station in between Beena and Bhopal, train over run her resulting in the said injury. The case has a chequered history. The claim petition was filed before the Claims Tribunal on 25-1-1993. It appears that the Claims Tribunal vide order dated 14-12-1994 ordered the claim petition to be transferred to the Civil Court for its trial. The case was transferred to the Civil Court for trial before the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge. Later on an objection was raised by the Union of India about the jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the case based on Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, came to the conclusion on 18-9-1997 that the case is triable by Railway Claims Tribunal only, hence, the case was transmitted to the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has passed an award which has been assailed to the present appeal.

( 3 ) THE claimant alleged that when she was going from Sagar to Indore, she had completed journey from Sagar to Beena and at Beena Station, she boarded another train for going to Bhopal and when the train reached Sanchi Station, the train was started without giving any whistle or signal and due to hue and cry raised and sudden boarding of the train by so many persons she fell down from the train and her left arm above elbow was over run by the train, and was amputated. She was taken to Bhopal for tratment by G. R. P. Police, Sanchi after making entry in Rojnamcha (Daily Diary), at serial No 3147 on 17-5-1991. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -.

( 4 ) IN the reply, the Union of India denied the accident itself for want of knowledge and contended that no such accident took place at Sanchi Station on 21-5-1991 as alleged and the claimant is not entitled for the compensation claimed. The deceased was not a valid passenger. She had not purchased ticket for the journey, hence, Railways could not be held liable to pay compensation.

( 5 ) ). Before the Claims Tribunal affidavits of Smt. Mulko Bai and Mitthulal Ahirwar were filed. They were cross-examined. On behalf of Railway also Rakesh Bhardwaj, Station Supdt. Sanchi (RW-1), Vinod Kumar Mishra, Asstt. Station Master, Vidisha, (RW-2) and Anup Kumar Verma, Pointsman 'a' Grade, Sanchi Rly. Station (RW-3) affidavits were filed who were cross-examined also.

( 6 ) IN the present appeal, learned counsel for the Railways Shri S. P. Sinha has assailed the award on merits as well as on the basis of jurisdictional compentence of the Claims Tribunal to pass the award. His submission is that the case was not triable before the Claims Tribunal hence the award is a nullity. He has further submitted that on the date of the accident which is 17-5-1991 Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 was not on book of statute it was subsequently inserted in the Act with effect from 1994 by the Railway Amendment Act (28 of 1994 ). It was not the case of untoward incident, covered under Section 124-A. Hence, the claims Tribunal has erred in law in invoking the provisions of Section 124-A to find it an untoward accident. He further submits that it not being untoward accident on date of occurrence. The case was wrongly transferred by the Civil Court to the Claims Tribunal and the provision of transfer of cases to the Railway Claims Tribunal contained in Section 13 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is not attracted to the case. He further submits that on merits the negligence of the railway has not been established. The deceased was not carrying ticket at the time of accident