AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE present Petition is filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned judgment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short, ''State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1778/2005 where by the Appeal filed by the Appellant has been dismissed and the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karauli (in short, ''District Forum '') in CC No. 11/2004 has been upheld.
THE brief facts of this case are: Total 19 cartons of plastic frames, used for slates, were booked by the complainant, under two separate builties from Paladhar station to be delivered at Hindon city station. But, complainant received only 17 cartons. The Station Master at Hindon issued a short certificate for deficit. On several enquires, the complainant did not get satisfactory reply from OP. Each carton was of 32 kg in weight, at the rate of Rs.111/ per kg, for two cartons amounting to Rs.7104/ . The Senior Divisional Manager, Western Railway, Kota had granted the claim for Rs.500/ . Hence, alleging deficiency in service by OP, the complainant filed a complaint before District Forum for an award of Rs.1,49,000/ towards compensation, along with Rs.7104/ . That the District Forum after hearing arguments of the parties, partly allowed the complaint and ordered that out of both builties, one carton not being given, measuring 32 kg material @ Rs.111/ per kg., Respondents would make payment of Rs.7104/ to the Complainant, along with 6% interest, from 29.04.2003. If any amount has been paid to the Complainant, earlier, the same is to be adjusted and Rs.200/ will be paid towards cost of litigation. The aforesaid amount to be paid within two months.
AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, the OP filed an appeal No.1778/2005, before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the said appeal.
AGAINST the order of State Commission, OP preferred this revision. We have heard the counsel of both the parties. The learned Counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain such claim. But, it could only have been decided by Railway Claims Tribunal. The Counsel for the Petitioner brought our attention to the provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal. The relevant provisions of Sections 13 and 15, referred above, are reproduced hereunder: " 13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of claims Tribunal - (1) The claims Tribunals 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 Railway 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 of non delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railways; ii) Compensation payable under Section 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 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 railways "
"15. 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. "
THE OP submitted that the value of such consignment was not declared by the Complainant, at the time of booking. As per the provisions of Section 103 of the Railways Act, 1989, for any consignment entrusted to Railway Administration for carriage by Railway and the value of such consignment has not been declared as required under Sub Section (2) by the consigner, amount of liability of the Railway Administration for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of the consignment, shall, in no case exceed such amount, calculated with reference to the weight of the consignment, as may be prescribed. It is submitted that the amount, as was paid for non delivery of the consignment was, as per the provisions of Railway Act, 1989.
THEREFORE , we are of considered opinion that, both the fora below have erred in not observing the provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to decide this case on hand, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, we allow the revision petition and dismiss the complaint. Parties are directed to bear their own cost. Liberty is given to the Complainant to approach proper Forum for his claim. CDJLawJournal