The amendments regarding untoward incidents were not applicable retrospectively, and the claimants could not file a case based on the amended provisions for an incident that occurred prior to the amendment.

( 1 ) UNION of India has filed the present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'act of 1987'), aggrieved by the award dated 12-6-97 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as 'tribunal') in Original Application No. 628/96. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lac as compensation to the respondents who are the legal representatives of deceased Sadashiv, who died due to a fall from running train.

( 2 ) THE final journey for the deceased began on 14/07/1992, when he boarded 130 Up train at Thandala for Meghnagar. He fell from the train and the train ran over him. The respondents, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed the claim for compensation before the Tribunal after about 4 years of the incident, on 5-8-96.

( 3 ) THE appellant contested the claim of the respondents on the ground that the application is barred by limitation. It was also contended by the Union of India that Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (herein- after referred to as the 'act of 1989'), providing for compensation on account of an untoward incident was inserted by Railway Amendment Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'amending Act') with effect from 1-8-1994 and the alleged incident, occurred prior to that date. Therefore, respondents cannot get the benefit of the amendment. It was further contended that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application. Regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the finding of the Tribunal was to the effect that it had jurisdiction to decide the application. The Tribunal also held that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger, consequently, it awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lac. The Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount. The appellant-railways is seriously aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and has filed this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the same.

( 5 ) THE respondents have filed a reply to the memo of appeal. This in fact appears to be a cross-objection, though the same has been styled as reply. In this reply, which we are treating as a cross-objection, the respondents have submitted that they are entitled to a claim of Rs. 4 lac and they have also prayed for enhancing the claim from Rs. 2 lac to 4 in view of substitution of Rs. 4 lac in place of Rs. 2 lac in the schedule of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents Compensation Rules, 1990, with effect from 1-11-97 by GSR 620 (E), Dated 25/10/1997.

( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

( 7 ) SHRI S. K. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-railways has summarised his attack on the impugned order as under :-1. that, the provisions regarding untoward incident were inserted in Railway Act by Amending Act and they are in force with effect from 1/08/1994, therefore, the present case is not covered by the amended provisions as the incident occurred prior thereto, on 14/07/1992. 2. that, the application was barred by limitation; 3. the claim was not triable by Railway Claims Tribunal. 4. that the deceased was travelling without ticket and was not a bona fide passenger, therefore, his legal representatives are not entitled to any claim.

( 8 ) PER Contra, Shri B. N. Shukla, learned counsel for respondents has not only supported the judgment of the Tribunal awarding compensation but has also submitted that the compensation awarded is inadequate and the same be enhanced to Rs. 4 lac. He submitted that Railway Act is a beneficial Legislation enacted in the interest of passengers, therefore, it should be interpreted liberally and, should also be given retrospective effect.

( 9 ) WE are mainly concerned with two provisions of the Act of 1989 which are enshrined in Sections 123 and 124-A and two Sections of the Act of 1987 namely, Sections 13 and 17. Section 123 of the Act