JOSEPH SEBASTIAN ALIAS S.JOGEPH vs Union of India

THE petitioner herein is an agent of M/s H.H. Ram and he is residing at Guwahati. A consignment of four bundles of handloom products (Sarees) was booked on 11.8.92 under Railway Receipt vide RR No. E 419576 form Madras to Guwahati. THE petitioner has alleged that he also travelled by the same train in which the consignment was booked. But the consignment was not delivered. THE petitioner enquired from the Railways at Madras. THE allegation of the petitioner is that inspite of enquires, the consignment was not delivered. Hence, the present petition.

ON behalf of the railways, a preliminary point has been taken that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, for short, ''the Act''. Heard Mr. G. Uzir, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways.

From the long title of the Act, it appears that the legislature provided for establishment of a Railway Claims Tribunal for enquiring into and determining claims against Railway administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to it to be carried or for refund of any freight or for compensation for death or injury to passenger occurring as a result of railway accidents and for matters connected therewith.

SECTION 13 of the Act lays-down jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal. Sub-clause (1) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of the said SECTION 13 is relevant for the present purpose. It provides, inter alia, that, the Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable earlier by any Civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the Railways Act and such claims according to Sub-clause (1) includes compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals and goods entrusted to Railway administration for carriage by railway. Section 15 of the Act provides that on coming into force of the Act, 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 of the Act.

THUS, it appears that the present claim being a case of non-delivery of goods by Railway, it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal and such a Tribunal has been set up at Guwahati. Now, the question is whether in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Commission can also entertain the present claim. The said Section provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In our opinion, the above Section 3 does not give us jurisdiction in view of the complete bar of jurisdiction of any Court or any authority by Section 15 of the Act. We may refer to decision of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission), Rajasthan, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 79 of 1989 in which similar view was also expressed.

SUCH a view was also taken by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras in Info International v. General Manager, Southern Railway & Another, 1992 (1) CPR 489. We are in respectful agreement with the above two views.

ON behalf of the petitioner, reliance has been placed in a decision of the National Commission in General Manager, South-eastern Railway & Others v. Anand Prasad Sinha and Others, I (1991) CPJ 10 (NC). But in the said decision this question was not at all considered and the National Commission only held that the passengers travelling by train on the payment of the stipulated fare charged for the ticket are consumers. Therefore, the above decision is no way helpful for the present petitioner. In view of what has been stated above, we hold that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and we direct that the petition may be returned to the petitioner with proper endorsement to enable the petitioner to approach the Claims Tribunal, if so advised. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of. No costs. Petition dismissed without costs.