BHIMA RAO vs SOUTHERN RAILWAYS

- IN this complaint the complainant has sought the compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest thereon from the Opp. Party-the Southern Railways, Mysore Division, for having sustained injuries in an accident on Railway Platform, Harihar.

THE complainant was working as Personnel Manager in the Mysore Kirloskar Limited, Harihar. It is the case of the complainant that he got a First-Class Railway Ticket reserved for travelling from Harihar to Bangalore by Vasco-Bangalore Mail on 9.12.91. The complainant reached the Railway Station by about 8.50 p.m. on 9.12.91. The train arrived and the First Class Compartment which he was to board was at the fag end of the platform. It is the case of the complainant that there was no lights at the end of the Railway Platform where the First Class Compartment was stationed. There were also no Railway Police near about that Compartment. While the complainant was about to enter the First Class Compartment of the train some miscreants threw acid from his backside on the right side face of the complainant. Inconsequence of which the complainant suffered serious burn injuries. 3. The complainant immediately thereafter made a complaint of these facts to the Station Master and from there in a car rushed to C.J. Hospital, Devanagare, about 14 K.Ms, away from Harihar. The complainant was inpatient for a day in the said Hospital and thereafter took treatment for a period of 4 months. The complainant lost the right ear on account of the said burn injuries sustained by him. This as per the allegation of the complainant was due to the gross negligence on the part of the Opp. Party-Railway Officials.

The complainant sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in respect of the expenses already incurred and to be incurred for plastic surgery in future.

TINE Opp. Party filed its version. It denied the fact that there were no lights on the platform. The Opp. Party further averred that the complainant had himself made a note in the complaint book immediately after the occurrence that the occurrence had taken place as a result of his personal enmity with the dismissed employees of the Mysore Kirloskar Limited as he had dismissed some employees on an enquiry in the capacity of a Personnel Manager. So he suspected the hands of these dismissed workmen in the occurrence. The Opp. Party further averred that the Consumer Commission had no jurisdiction to try this complaint as the complaint was tenable only before the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act constituted under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

THE Opp. Party on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed. We heard the complainant and the learned Counsel for the Opp. Party regarding maintainability of the complaint and perused the pleadings of the parties. The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, came into force on 8.11.89. The provisions of Section 15 of the said Act read as under : "15. Bar of jurisdiction.-On and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 13."

IT is clear from this provision that no Court or other Authority shall have jurisdiction to exercise powers in relation to the matters referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 13. "13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal.-(1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any Civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railway Act,- (a) relating to the responsibility of the Railway Administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for- (i) compensation for loss destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a Railway Administration for carriage by Railways; (ii) compensation payable under Sec. 82-A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and (b) In respect of claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a Railway Administration to be carried by Railways. (2) The provisions of the Railways Act and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act."

THIS would go to show that a claim for compensation for loss, destruction or damage from the Railway Administration shall be tenable before the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The subject-matter of the complaint and the relief asked for by the complainant are matters referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. There is a complete bar of jurisdiction under Section 15 of the said Act. The provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1987 completely ousts the jurisdiction of the Court and any other Authority. The complaint filed by the complainant on account of bar of jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Act of 1987 cannot be entertained and decided by the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. So the complaint is untenable.

In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.