UNION OF INDIA Vs. AHALYA PRUSTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 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.