Petitioner / complainant booked five packets of motor cycle spare parts worth Rs.89,120/- from Delhi to Muzaffarpur by train no. 5610 on 13.4.1995 which was not delivered to him at the Railway Parcel Office, Muzaffarpur on the ground of non-receipt of the consignment. He entered into correspondence with the railway authorities but as the dispute was not settled, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.89,120/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum relying upon its earlier decision in which it was held that because of the bar created by section 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, was not maintainable and the only remedy available with the petitioner to lodge the claim under the Railways Claim Tribunal Act, 1987. The petitioner, being not satisfied, has filed the present revision petition. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Section 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, bars the exercise of any jurisdiction of any court or authority in relation to the matters referred to in sub-sections (1) and (1 A) of section 13. The same reads as under:- 5. 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-sections (1) and (1A)] of section 13. The present claim falls under section 13 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act and therefore, the fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would not have any jurisdiction to entertain any claim in relation to the matter referred to under section 13. Dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to seek relief from any other forum alongwith an application under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay for the time spent before the consumer fora, keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.