NATHMAL ASHOK KUMAR vs WESTERN RAILWAY

THE complainant filed this complaint against the opposite-party under Sec. 12 read with Sec. 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) before the State Commission on July 20, 1990.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant, we have come to the conclusion that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint under Sec. 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to mention that the complainant in pursuance of the order received, booked the goods and delivered the consignment to the Railway Station. PaliMarwar for being sent to Diyodar (Gujarat). The consignment was to be sent to M/s. Yogesh Kumar Hasmukhlal Post Thara Distt. Banaskata (Gujarat). Railway freight charged from the complainant was Rs. 23/-. RR No. 612699 dated 17.1.89 was issued and given to the complainant. M/s. Yogesh Kumar Hasmukhlal, by their letter dated 7.3.89 returned original RR and informed Be complainant that the goods have not reached. Lot of correspondence was done with the Railway Authorities but it was of no avail and no satisfactory reply was given. The goods sent in the consignment were not received back by the complainant. The case of the complainant is that despite payment of freight, the opposite party has not rendered proper service to him, and on account of the deficiency in service the complainant had mental agony and financial loss. He claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,400/- as compensation including the cost of the goods mentioned in the bill from the opposite party. This complaint was filled on July 20, 1990. A notice was issued to the complainant to show cause as to why should not be rejected as barred under Sec. 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. In pursuance of the notice, Mr. Bhagchand Jain, learned Counsel for the complainant has appeared. He was heard. The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (Act No. 50 of 1987) for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, will be referred to as the Act of 1987. Preamble of the Act of 1987 is as follows:- "An Act to provide for the establishment of a Railway Claims Tribunal for inquiring into and determining claims against a railway administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to it to be carried by railway or for the refund of fares or freight or for compensation for death or injuries to passengers occurring as a result of railway accidents and for matters concerned therewith or incidental thereto."

Sec. 13 of the Act of 1987 deals with jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal. S. 13(1), material for our purpose, is as follows: - "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 Claim Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act. (a) (i) .. .. .. (ii) .. .. .. (b) in respect of the claims for refund 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 railway."

SEC. 15 of the Act deals with bar of jurisdiction. It is 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, power or authority in relation to the matters referred to in Sub-section (1) of SECtion 13."

Chapter IV of the Act of 1987 provides for procedure. Sec. 16 deals with application to Claims Tribunal. S. 17 is for limitation and Sec. 18 provides procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the Act had come into force on the date, the complaint was filed and the Claims Tribunal has been established under Sec. 3 of the Act of 1987. A perusal of Section shows that a Court or any other authority cannot exercise jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act of 1987.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainant does not dispute that the subject matter of the complaint and the reliefs asked for by the complainant are matters referred to in Sub-section (1) of Sec. 13 of the Act of 1987. There is a complete bar of jurisdiction. S. 3 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. It cannot be of any avail, for Sec. 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 Sec. 15 of the Act of 1987 cannot be entertained, tried, heard and decided by the State Commission under the Act. The complaint is, therefore, rejected on this limited ground. The complainant, if advised, may pursue other remedy according to law. Complaint rejected.