JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The case of the complainant is that on 08.02.2003, it took six cartons containing cigarettes for being taken from Soro station to Babina station, but only three cartons were delivered at destination on 09.02.2003. Being aggrieved from his loss, the complainant approached the concerned Dis t r ic t Forum, seeking payment of Rs. 61,920/-, that being the price of the cigarettes alleged to have been lost during the transit alongwith compensation and cost of litigation.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner, inter-alia, on the ground that Railway Claims Tribunal constituted under the Railway Claims Tribunal 1987 was the proper forum to deal with such cases and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum was barred under Section 15 of the said
3. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission, by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed in default and for non-prosecution, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.
4. In Union of India & Ors. vs. Sri Ramji Enterprises & Anr., First Appeal No. 411/1996, decided on 26.09.2001, the grievance of the complainant/respondent was that they had loaded
850 metric tonnes of charcoal at Koodal Nagar Railway Station, out of which 264 metric tonnes of charcoal was lost in transit, thereby causing a loss of 13.75 lakhs to them. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Indian Railways, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission, by way of a complaint. The State Commission having ruled in favour of the complainant, Union of India approached this Commission by way of an appeal. Allowing the appeal, it was held by this Commission that the State Commission had no jurisdiction in the matter. In taking this view, this Commission referred to Section 15 and 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, which reads as under:-
15. . On or from the appointed day, no court or otherBar of jurisdiction authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in [sub-sections (1) and (1)A] of section 13.
28. . The provisions of this Act shall haveAct to have overriding effect effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. This Commission rejected the contention of the complainant in that case that the provisions of this Act being in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any law for the time being in force, even where a particular enactment oust the jurisdiction of any Forum other than the Tribunal set up under the Special Act. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Marine Container Services South Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Go Go Garments (1998) 3 , holding that Section 3 of the Contract Act cannot override other provisions of law.SCC 247
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the decision of this Commission in . In thatUnion of India & Anr. Vs. M. Adaikalam II (1993) CPJ 145 (NC) case, the grievance of the complainant was that consignment booked by him had not been delivered to him at the destination till 14.01.1991, though it was booked on 05.08.1990. Alleging deficiency on the part of the Indian Railways, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The District Forum as well as the State Commission having ruled in favour of the complainant, Union of India approached this Commission by way of a revision petition. It was held by this Commission that the Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint 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 and that such jurisdiction exclusively vests in the Railway Claims Tribunal. The above referred decision of this Commission finds reference in the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation vs. Consumer Protection Council, AIR 1995 SC 1384.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we have no hesitation in holding that no Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging loss or non-delivery of goods entrusted to the Indian Railways. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed. It is however, made clear that dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the complainant approaching the Railway Claims Tribunal for the redressal of his grievances in accordance with law. ......................J
V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER