Union of India vs SOM PARKASH And BROS.

THIS is an appeal at the behest of Union of India Northern Railways and Station Master, Northern Railway, Gidderbaha against the judgment and order of the District Forum dated 16.4.2001. The detailed facts are not necessary to be stated for the view we are taking in the matter.

COMPLAINANT, Shri Som Parkash, alleged in the complaint that he had booked three cartons containing 58 boxes each of snuff (in vernacular ''Naswar'') valuing Rs. 9,744 as also one other carton containing 120 packets valuing Rs. 4,200 with the Railways at Gidderbaha vide GR No. 331396 dated 13.7.1998 and paid the transportation charges for the delivery of the same to its consignee at Bassi Pathana. The allegation made was that the booked cartons were not delivered to the consignee and were rather lost in transit. Damages, etc. were claimed before the District Forum. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum and the respondents in the complaint (now the appellants) were directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 13,944 as price of consignment along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and also to refund the transportation charges of Rs. 97. Rs . 5,000 was also awarded as compensation and costs. The point raised by the appellants in this appeal is regarding the jurisdiction of the Fora under the C.P. Act, 1986 to entertain the complaint like the present one. The matter need not detain us in view of the judgment of the National Commission in Union of India through General Manager, Southern Railway v. M. Adaikalam, II (1993) CPJ 145 (NC)=1993 (2) CPR 1994 (NC). In that case it was specifically held that the Fora has no jurisdiction in case there is alleged loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods or delay in delivery of the goods by the Railways. The Fora under the CP Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on account of alleged deficiency in service. This was so held in view of provisions of Section 13 and Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. We had an occasion to consider a similar point in First Appeal No. 161 of 2006 Union of India, Northern Railway and Others v. M/s. Manko Industries, decided on 25.7.2006. After detailed discussion, we had held that Fora under the CP Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regarding the goods which are booked through the Railways. The judgment of this Commission cited by the respondent complainant, Northern Railway v. Avinash Chadha, 1998 (2) CON.LT 481 does not apply to the facts of the present case. That was a case where a passenger had lodged a complaint with the District Forum alleging non-maintenance of temperature in the AC Coach and thereby suffering physically. That judgment was not dealing with the case of ''goods'' booked through the Indian Railways, which are specifically dealt with by the Act known as Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Learned Counsel for the respondent complainant also relied on the observations made by the Haryana State Commission in a judgment reported as Union of India, Northern Railway v. M/s. Rohtak Khadi Ashram, 1998 (1) CPC 448. The appeal of the Northern Railway had been dismissed as time barred by the Haryana State Commission. However, in para 2 of the judgment the Haryana State Commission observed as under: "2 Before parting with the cases, to be fair to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Northern Railway, it may be noticed that the learned Counsel has vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum was without jurisdiction as the complaints claiming compensation for loss of goods in transit were not maintainable before the District Forum but could only be filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal. He has placed reliance on the decision of Hon''ble National Commission reported as 1993 (II) CPR 94=1993CPC 676 NC, Union of India through G.M. Southern Railways, Madras v. M. Adaikalam. Therefore, according to learned Counsel, if the orders are allowed to stand, they might be cited as precedents in other similar cases. In our opinion, the apprehension of the learned Counsel is without any basis. Firstly, because the appeals have been dismissed being barred by time and the original order was ex parte; secondly, the learned District Consumer Forum has proceeded to exercise jurisdiction the matter by virtue of the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act which 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.'' So it does not warrant any interference by us in appeal. Appeal dismissed.

ACCORDING to us, the observations made in the last line are per incurium and are not laying down any law. In First Appeal No. 161 of 2005 this Commission had dealt with the provisions of Section 3 of the CP Act vis-a-vis Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and had held that if any Central statute bars the jurisdiction of other Courts then Section 3 would not be applicable. When Adaikalam''s case (supra) was decided by the National Commission it can be presumed that Section 3 of the CP Act was taken note of. In any case, if the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent complainant of the Haryana State Commission (supra) is taken to mean that the Fora under the CP Act has the jurisdiction to entertain such a claim, as in the present one, then with respect to the judgment of the Haryana State Commission we do not agree with the same. For the reasons recorded in First Appeal No. 161 of 2006 (supra), we are of the view that the judgment of the District Forum was wholly without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, we are not going into the merits of the case. Consequently, the appeal is accepted. The judgment of the District Forum is hereby set aside and the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs. However, this judgment will not come in the way of the respondent complainant to have recourse to his remedy under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

A copy of the judgment in First Appeal No. 161 of 2006 will form part of this judgment. Appeal allowed