U. S. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS F. A. F. O. has been preferred under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 [section 124 of Railways Act 1989] against the judgment and order dated 20. 4. 1993 passed by railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Claim Application No. OA II/103 of 1992 allowing the application in part and awarding a sum of Rs. 75,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by claimant/respondent. ( 2 ) THE respondent moved an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 124 of the Railways Act for the compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in an accident of Kanya-kubj Express on 8. 3. 91 between Mandhna and Chaubeypur Railway Stations. ( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to the application out of which this appeal arose, briefly narrated are that on 8. 3. 1991 the respondent was travelling by Kanyakubj Express on monthly season ticket No. 13132 dated 6. 3. 1991 valid up to 5. 4. 1991. When the above train reached between Mandhna and chaubeypur Railway Stations it was involved in an accident and collided with a tractor-trolley. In the said accident the respondent sustained serious injuries to thumb and fingers of his left hand. Due to above injuries his right thumb had to be amputated. The appellant Union of India filed written reply. However, it admitted the accident and sustaining injuries by respondent in the said accident. It contested the claim on the ground that the respondent was not a bona fide passenger because the monthly season ticket on which he was travelling was not valid as it was issued in the name of puttan Bihari Lal while the respondent also used his surname as shukla and the respondent had not put his signature on the said ticket. ( 4 ) THE Railway Claims Tribunal framed issues and considering the evidence of the parties held that the respondent was travelling on a valid monthly season ticket and was a bona fide passenger. It further held that the respondent had sustained injuries in the train accident noted in the medical certificate issued by one Prof. R. K. Shukla, Department of Orthopaedics, Medical college, Kanpur. It further held that the left thumb of the respondent was amputated and, therefore, he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000 as a loss of left thumb. It further held that the respondent had sustained injuries in the train accident noted in the medical certificate issued by one Prof. R. K. Shukla, Department of Orthopaedics, Medical college, Kanpur. It further held that the left thumb of the respondent was amputated and, therefore, he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000 as a loss of left thumb. That three fingers were also injured/damaged and the respondent was entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,000 for each injury. With these findings the Tribunal allowed the application awarding Rs. 75,000 as compensation. ( 5 ) AGAINST the above award of the Tribunal this appeal has been preferred. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 7 ) THE first point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the respondent was not a bona fide passenger. He pointed out that the respondent was travelling on a monthly season ticket but it was issued in the name of Puttan Bihari Lal while the name of respondent was Puttan bihari Lal Shukla and the respondent had also not signed on the above monthly season ticket and, therefore, it was not issued in his name. Having considered the evidence on the basis of which the Tribunal recorded a finding I find no force in the above contention. Omission of surname in monthly season ticket is of no use. Moreover, no evidence was adduced from the side of appellant that the monthly season ticket was issued in the name of some other person than the respondent. The monthly season ticket in question was taken by railway staff from the custody of respondent and it also bears photograph. There was no evidence on record to show that photograph was changed or it was of some other person. The Tribunal had found that the monthly season ticket was valid from 6. 3. 1991 to 5. 4. 1991 and the accident in question took place on 8. 3. 1991. Therefore, on the date of accident the monthly season ticket was valid. Thus, there is nothing on record to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent was a bona fide passenger on the ill-fated train. 3. 1991 to 5. 4. 1991 and the accident in question took place on 8. 3. 1991. Therefore, on the date of accident the monthly season ticket was valid. Thus, there is nothing on record to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent was a bona fide passenger on the ill-fated train. ( 8 ) THE next point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the tractor driver and part compensation should also have been claimed from the owner of the tractor and the insurance company with which it was insured. But this plea was not taken before the Tribunal. No issue was framed on this point nor the parties; adduced any evidence in this regard. ( 9 ) MOREOVER, Section 124-A of the Railways Act shows that 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 dependant 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. ( 10 ) FROM the above section it is clear that the incident which had taken place even due to any negligence on the part of tractor driver would amount to untoward incident and railway administration is responsible for compensation to the injuries sustained by the respondent who was travelling in the train which met with an accident. Therefore, the appellant cannot be absolved of the liability of payment of compensation on this ground. ( 11 ) NO other point was pressed. ( 12 ) IN this way, I find no force in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 13 ) THE appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay order dated 13. 12. 1996 is vacated. .