P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE Union of India has filed this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "tribunal") directing payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the applicant. ( 2 ) THE present respondent as applicant filed an application under Section 13 (1a) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act on the allegation that his father fell down from the train while travelling from Puri to Chhatrapur by the D. M. U. First on 29-7-1996. The present appellant contested the case by denying the allegations made in the claim application and it was stated that no "untoward incident" had occurred bringing the case within the scope of Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act. ( 3 ) BEFORE considering the contentions raised by the parties, it would be worthwhile to notice some of the relevant provisions of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Initially, there was no provision contained in the Indian Railways Act, 1890, fixing liability of the Railways in respect of accidents to train carrying passenger and question of liability was governed by the common law principles of torts. In 1943, the Indian Railways Act, 1890, was amended and Section 82-A was inserted providing liability of the Railways under certain circumstances in respect of accidents to train carrying passenger. In 1949, Section 82-B to 82-J were added providing the forum for adjudication of liability of the Railways in respect of accidents to train carrying passenger. While interpreting such provisions, it was held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 1737 (Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Ghosh) that a passenger travelling in a train or his legal representative would not be entitled to claim any amount under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act in the forum prescribed under the Act unless there is a collision between trains or derailment of train. Subsequently, the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, was enacted providing for determination of claims by a Tribunal constituted under such new Act and the jurisdiction of Civil Court as well as the jurisdiction of the Claims Commissioner, as envisaged under the Indian Railways Act, 1890, was ousted. Subsequently, the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, was enacted providing for determination of claims by a Tribunal constituted under such new Act and the jurisdiction of Civil Court as well as the jurisdiction of the Claims Commissioner, as envisaged under the Indian Railways Act, 1890, was ousted. Under the Railways Act, 1989, which came into force on 1-7-1990 , the law relating to liability of the Railways was practically re-enacted, but no liability was envisaged unless there was a collision between two trains or derailment. For the first time, by introduction of Section 124-A and other ancillary provisions, liability of the Railways when an "untoward incident" occurred was fixed. The provisions contained in Sections 123 (c) and 124-A being relevant are extracted hereunder :-"123. (c), 'untoward incident' means - (1) (i) the commission of a terriorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Terriorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commision of robbery or dacoity, or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloakroom or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 124-A. When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, 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 the dependent of a passenger who has been killed 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, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident :provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to - (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. EXPLANATION.- For the purposes of this section, 'passenger' includes - (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platfrom ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. "substantive law relating to liability is thus contained in the Indian Railways Act, 1989, particularly in Section 124-A read with other relevant provisions. ( 4 ) THE procedural aspect is now contained in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and under such Act, the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, has been framed. It is necessary to notice some of the Rules throwing light upon the procedure to be adopted. Rule 14 provides for filing of affidavit. Rule 17 provides for hearing of the applications. Rule 20 prescribes the power of the Tribunal relating todiscovery, inspection and other incidental matters. Rule 21 prescribes for framing Issues for the purpose of deciding such issues and Rule 22 provides for summoning of witnesses and method of recording evidence. Rule 21 (3) lays down :-" (3) After framing the issues, the Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence therecon which each party may desire to produce. Rule 21 prescribes for framing Issues for the purpose of deciding such issues and Rule 22 provides for summoning of witnesses and method of recording evidence. Rule 21 (3) lays down :-" (3) After framing the issues, the Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence therecon which each party may desire to produce. " A perusal of these provisions of the Act and the Rules makes it clear that the Railway Claims Tribunal has all the trappings of the Civil Court for the purpose of deciding a dispute and yet the Tribunal is not bogged down by all the technical procedures applicable to a Civil Court trying a case. Though it is prescribed that Issues are to be framed, it is also contemplated that affidavit can be considered as substitute for evidence. ( 5 ) IN the above background of the history of the relevant provisions, the contentions raised by the parties are to be appreciated. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that after reply was filed by the Railways, the case was adjourned from day to day. However, it does not appear from the order-sheet that issues were framed though from the judgment it appears that the Tribunal has determined issues, as indicated in paragraph 3 of the judgment. It is thus clear that the Issues were framed and answered in the judgment itself and not on any earlier occasion. ( 6 ) EVEN though all the technical rules under the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable, Rule 21 itself contemplated that issues are to be framed and thereafter opportunity shall be given to the parties for adducing evidence. In the present case, it appears that initially the applicant had filed an affidavit and subsequently, the deponent was cross-examined on 1-9-1998 and on that very day, the judgment was pronounced. It does not appear that after framing issues, the Tribunal has called upon the parties , particularly the appellant, to adduce evidence. Since the Tribunal does not appear to have followed the procedure prescribed under the Rules, I think interest of justice would be served by directing the Railway Claims Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence on the issues indicated in paragraph 3 of the judgment. Since the Tribunal does not appear to have followed the procedure prescribed under the Rules, I think interest of justice would be served by directing the Railway Claims Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence on the issues indicated in paragraph 3 of the judgment. The parties are directed to appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 19th, January, 2000, whereafter, the Tribunal shall fix an appropriate date for recording evidence and thereafter shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law on the basis of evidence already on record and to be adduced by the parties. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed on the other contentions raised by the parties. ( 7 ) THE Misc. Appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.