UNION OF INDIA vs M.ADAIKALAM

THE Respondent herein was the petitioner-complainant before the District Forum and respondent before the State Commission. The revision petitioners herein were the respondents before the District Forum and appellants before the State Commission.

THE respondent-complainant had booked parcel of Church Bell from Tirunelveli to Balasore Railway Station on the 5th of August, 1990. The consignment was not delivered at the destination station till 14th January, 1991 when he filed a complaint before the District Forum against deficiency in service on the part of the Carrier Railways for non-delivery of the Church Bell. The District Forum passed and order in favour of the complainant on 12th of April, 1991 granting a compensation of Rs. 16,750/- with interest at 12% till the date of delivery and Rs. 6000/- as damages and Rs. 500/- as costs. The revision petitioner challanged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission in May, 1991. During the pendency of the appeal the consignment of Church Bell was delivered to the consignee on the 8th September, 1991. The State Commission held that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a bar to the entertainment of complaints regarding non-delivery loss, damage etc. but not in respect of delay in delivery of goods. The State Commission held that there was delay in delivery and modified the order of the District Forum and awarded compensation of Rs. 6,000/- and costs amounting to Rs. 500/- to the respondent-complainant.

THE order of the State Commission has been challenged by the revision petitioner-Railways on the ground: (i) In Rule 121 of the Coaching Tariff in force during the relevant period it is laid down that "Railways do not guarantee despatch of articles or animals by any particular train ordelivery within any definite time or period".

The revision petitioner therefore contended that by virtue of this provision in the Coaching Tariff they have no liability for delay in delivery of the Church Bell; there was a delay of over one year in delivering the consignment.

WE find that there is merit in the contention of the revision petitioners-Railways. As held by the State Commission, the Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to entertain complaints on account of deficiency in service arising from loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of the goods etc. entrusted to the Railway Administration for carriage. This jurisdiction is now exclusively vested in Railway Claims Trubinal established under the Railway Claims Trubinal Act, 1987. In addition, the Railways have no liability for delay in delivery in terms of the Coaching Tariff. In view of the above, there has been an error in exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission . The revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The order of the State Commission is set aside. There is no order as to costs.