Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President . <br /> The case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act and its brief fact is as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant with his wife boarded the Ispat Express Train No.2872 on Dt.03/06/2009 with a view to going to North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology at Niruji in Arunachal Pradesh, which was scheduled to reach Howrah at 18.45 hrs but actually reached at 22.45 hrs late by 4 (four) hrs. Due to late arrival he missed the Train No.2517(Garib Ratha) to Guwahaty for no fault of his own. The Complainant contend that he had also booked the return tickets with reservation from Guwahaty to Howrah and from Howrah to Bargarh Road before the commencement of his journey from Bargarh on Dt.03/06/2009. Failure in catching Train No.2517 caused him great mental pain and agony. Further the case of the Complainant is that in order to maintain his schedule plan he had to go to Guwahaty by air on Dt.04/06/2009 after spending very disturbing time in a hotel at night on Dt.03/06/2009 and thereby he sustained additional expenditure of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees six thousand)only for the fault of Railway to provide the proper service for late arrival of Train No.2872 at Howrah, the Complainant had to suffer physically, mentally and financially.<br /> <br /> The matter was brought to the notice of East Coast Railway by his letter Dt.03/07/2009 through the Station Manager, Bargarh Road which was rejected by a letter No. DY CCM /BBS /RTF /SS /5448/ 07/09/972, Dt.17/08/2009 by the Deputy Chief Claims Officer, Bhubaneswar stating there is no such provision to honour his claim.<br /> <br /> Alleging deficiency in providing service by this Opposite Parties the Complainant filed this case and claims Rs.6,000/-(Rupees six thousand)only the extra expenditure incurred by him and Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only compensation for his mental agony and physically torture.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties challenges the maintainability of this complaint before this Forum. Under Section 13 of Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987, he could have approach the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal for redressal of his grivances, under the said Section of the Act Railway Claim Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the matter referred to in Sub Section(1) of Sec 13 of the Act and Under Section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, the jurisdiction of all Courts and authorities are barred.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties contend that, the Railway is not responsible for late running of trains as it may take place in the long journey route due to the operational reasons. The exact reason of late running as informed by the Sr. DOM/SER/CKP is that the Mega Block at Adityapur for inter locking work(N/I) from Dt.31/05/2009 to Dt.03/06/2009.<br /> The Train No.2872, Ispat Express cannot be reckoned as connecting train to train No.2517 Guwahaty Garib Rath Express. The tickets vide PNR No.622-8272488 from Kolkata to Guwahaty by train No.2517 on Dt.03/06/2009 was issued under tatkal scheme with confirmed berths. As per the instruction booked in the face of the tatkal ticket there is no provision for refund of fare under Tatkal Scheme as stipulated under Ministry of Railway (Rail Mantralaya), Rail Bhawan letter No.206/TG-1/20/P Tatkal Dt.30/06/2009.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties contend that since the Train No.2827 Ispat Express is not at all the connecting train of the Train No.2517, Garib Rath Express, Railway Administration is not at all responsible for the petitioner being failed to catch Train No.2517, Guwahaty Garib Rath Express and for the additional expenditure incurred by the Complainant due to late arrival of train no.2872 Ispat Express.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties claims that, there is no any deficiency in service towards the Complainant and as per the statutory provisions incorporated under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 the present Complainant has got no merit and prays for dismissal of the case with lost.<br /> <br /> Perused the Complainant petition Opposite Parties's version as well as the copy of documents filed by the parties and find as follows.<br /> <br /> Due to late arrival of Ispat Express Train No.2872 on Dt.03/06/2009 to Howrah the Complainant missed the connecting Train No.2517 Garib Rath to Guwahaty for his no fault. The Complainant has also booked return ticket . To maintain the schedule plan the Complainant with his wife travelled by air on Dt.04/06/2009 after spending very disturbing time in a hotel at night on Dt.03/06/2009. Thereby the Complainant had to incurred an additional expenditure of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees six thousand)only for his no fault and claims for compensation. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties pleaded that the Train No.2872 Ispat Express is not at all the connecting train of the Train No.2517 Garib Ratha Express, Railway Administration is not at all responsible for the Petitioner being failed to catch Train No.2517 and for the additional expenditure incurred by the Complainant due to late arrival of the Train No.2872 Ispat Express . There is no any material placed before the Forum to prove that Train No.2872 Ispat Express is the connecting train to the Train No.2517 Griba Ratha.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties challenges the maintainability of this complaint before the Consumer Forum. Under Section 13 of Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987 Railway Claims Tribunal has got exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the matter referred in Sub Section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 bars the jurisdiction of any Court or authority to exercise jurisdiction in relation to the matters to section 13. As per the provision of section 13 the powers can be exercised only by the Railway Claims Tribunal. <br /> <br /> As there was a bar Under Section 15 of the Railway Claims Act 1987 to entertain such matter, the Consumer Forum can not go in to the merits of the case. In the matter of Jai Narain vs North Western Railways reported in 2010(1) CPR the Hon'ble State Commission Rajasthan, held that Consumer Forum can not adjudicate Railway Claims.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed. <br /> <br /> Complaint disposed of accordingly. No cost/compensation.