Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

H.S. Bedi, J.—This order will dispose of F.A.F.O. Nos. 1074, 1075, 1052 of 1993 and C.R. No. 1233 of 1991.

The appellants Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation (hereinafter called the ''Corporation'') filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,749.20 as compensation for the shortage of 4,200 metric tonnes of pig iron, booked from Bokaro to Suranussi (Jalandhar). The Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, was arrayed as respondent No. 1, whereas the Steel Authority of India, i.e., the consignor was named as respondent No. 2. The claim in the suit was for compensation to be payable jointly and severally. On the enforcement of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter called ''the Act'') the suit was transmitted to the Railway Claims Tribunal as provided by Section 24 of the Act. When the matter came up before the Tribunal on 12.4.1993. the counsel for the railway administration raised an oral objection that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to decide the application as, in addition to the railway administration, the consignor, i.e., the Steel Authority of India has also been arrayed as a respondent. The Tribunal accordingly went into this matter and accepted the argument of the learned Counsel for the Railways and opined that as the claim application was a composite one, and as the relief had been claimed against the railway administration, as also the Steel Authority of India, the same could not be decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal accordingly remitted the case to the civil Court. The present appeal has been filed against the order aforesaid.

I have heard Mr. Amit Rawal, the learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation. The sections relevant to the disposal of the appeal would be Sections 13, 15 and 24 of the Act and the same are reproduced hereunder:

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 Railways 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 railway;

(ii) compensation payable u/s 82-A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and

(b) in respect of the 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 railway.

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.

Transfer of pending cases.-(1) Every suit, claim or other legal proceeding (other than an appeal) pending before any Court, Claims Commissioner or other authority immediately before the appointed day, being a suit, claim or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after the appointed day, within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that day to the Claims Tribunal.

(2) Where any suit, claim or other legal proceeding stands transferred from any Court, Claims Commissioner or other authority to the Claims Tribunal under Sub-section (1),-

(a) the Court, Claims Commissioner or other authority shall, as soon as may be after such transfer, forward the records of such suit, claim or other legal proceeding to the Claims Tribunal;

(b) the Claims Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit, claim or other legal proceedings, so far as may be, in the same manner as an application, from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or de novo as the Claims Tribunal may deem fit.

A reading of the aforesaid sections would indicate that as far as Railways are concerned that the present matter would be clearly within the purview of the Claims Tribunal.

The question now arises as to the maintainability of the claim application qua respondent No. 2, the Steel Authority of India. Mr. Rawal has pointed out that if the reasoning of the Tribunal was to be accepted, the same bar would be faced by the appellant qua the maintainability of the suit vis-a-vis the Railways before the civil Court by virtue of Section 15 of the Act which categorically bars any proceeding of such a nature before the civil Court. In this connection, he has also pointed out that on a proper reading of the provisions aforesaid, the only inference that could follow was that the matter be determined by the Claims Tribunal and in case the Tribunal finds that the Railways were not at fault, the appellant could take its chance in a civil suit qua the other respondent and because of the pendency of the application before the Claims Tribunal, the bar of limitation would also be saved. To my mind, this is the only way that the matter can be resolved. It is evident from a reading of the aforesaid sections that the claim against the railway is barred in any forum except the Claims Tribunal and, as such, to my mind the only remedy available to the appellant was to approach the Tribunal seeking redressal against the Railways and if it was found that the Railways were not at fault, to seek a remedy before the civil Court.

In C.R. No. 1233 of 1991 filed by the railway administration, a view contrary to the one taken by the counsel for the Railways in the earlier matters had been agitated and it was urged before the civil Court that it did not have the jurisdiction to try the claim as it was to be transferred to the Claims Tribunal u/s 24 of the Act. In the light of what has been held above, this view is not tenable. These appeals are accordingly allowed, the orders impugned quashed and a direction issued that the matters shall be disposed of by the Claims Tribunal.

The parties are directed to appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, on 16.4.1998.