N.E. RAILWAY vs MUKTI NATH GUPTA

PETITIONER, who is the O.P. in the Complaint Case No. 264/2002, pending before the District Consumer Forum, Saran (Chapra) has preferred this revision against the order dated 3.2.2004, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Saran in the above complaint case, by which the District Consumer Forum has been pleased to reject the plea of the petitioner regarding non-maintainability of the complaint case.

THE brief facts of the case is that the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Saran stating therein that he booked his articles along with one Godrej Fridge etc. on 28.10.1999 from Jam Nagar Railway Station (Gujarat) to Chapra (Saran) after paying proper freight and fare. His booked Fridge could not be delivered at Chapra for which he made several inquiries and at last filed complaint before the Consumer Forum claiming Rs. 28,801/- as cost of the Fridge, other expense and compensation for harassment. The O.P. appeared and filed written statement and took plea that under Sections 13 and 14 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, it was not maintainable and prayed that the complaint may be dismissed. After hearing of the parties the District Forum held by the order dated 3.2.2004 that complaint is maintainable and accordingly rejected the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the petitioner (Rly.)

State Commission after admitting the Revision, issued notice to the complainant (O.P.), but inspite of several adjournments he did not appear, as such, the petitioner was heard ex parte. The main contention of the petitioner is that Sections 13 and 14 of the above mentioned Acts, jurisdiction of the other Forum has been barred. Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the ground of deficiency of service arising from loss, destruction, non-delivery etc. of the entrusted articles to the Rly. Administration for carriage. This jurisdiction is exclusively vested with the Rly. Claims Tribunal. In support of this contention the petitioner placed reliance on the order of the Hon''ble National Commission passed in Revision Case No. 732/2001, wherein it has been held that National Commission in earlier orders, including 1st Appeal No. 44/1996 has held that Section 15 of the Rly. Claims Tribunal Act bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court and any other Tribunal in relation to the matter which have been amenable to the jurisdiction of Rly. Claims Tribunal and order of the District Consumer Forum and State Commission, who held that Forum has jurisdiction, was set aside. The petitioner placed reliance an other decisions of the Hon''ble National Commission including reported in II (1993) CPJ 145 (NC) and this State Commission in Appeal No. 369/1995 decided on 16.4.2004 and also in Appeal No. 46/1997 decided on 29.1.2004, wherein in all the cases it has been held that Special Tribunal has been created to deal with such grievances for non-delivery of the booked articles and does not adjudicable before other Forum.

WE have gone through the case laws on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner and are of the view that such complaint was not maintainable before the District Consumer Forum, but such claim can only be moved before the Rly. Claims Tribunal. In the result, revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.2.2004 of the District Forum, Chapra is hereby set aside. Revision allowed.