RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Revision No.24 of 1997

1- Union of India through General Manager,

    N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur and Divisional

    Manager, N.E. Railway, Varanasi.            .. Revisionist.

Versus

Kaushlesh Kumar Singh s/o Shri Ram Suresh

Singh, R/o Village and PO, Nema, Tehsil,

Salempur, District, Deoria.                          …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.                        

Shri M.H. Khan for the revisionist.

None for the respondent.

Date  5.6.2018

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

          This revision stems out of an order passed by the forum below on 4.1.1997 in complaint case no.316 of 1994 by the District Forum, Deoria.

          The facts leading to the present revision, in short, are that a complaint was filed by the complainant for getting injured as the train did not stop at the plat-form  and there was no facility of getting down safely from the train and hence, he was seriously injured and both his legs had to be amputated. The revisionist/OP raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the case could not be filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as there was specific bar under section 15 of the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 whereby the jurisdiction of any other court or

(2)

any other Forum to entertain the case is barred but the ld. Forum has rejected the contention of the revisionist/OP and has held that the District Forum have had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

          Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that this revision has been filed on the ground that the impugned order has been passed against the fact and law. The case of accident relating to train is covered under section 82(a) of the Old Railway Act and after its amendment under section 24/24(a) of the Railway Act, 1989 and under section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the jurisdiction of any other court or authority is barred hence, the ld. Forum had had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Besides, the accident caused to the complainant was an out-come of his own doing and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Station but the ld. Forum has passed the impugned order against the facts and evidence and therefore, it is liable to be set aside and the complaint dismissed on the ground of having no jurisdiction.

          In this case, the complainant is alleged to have been injured due to the fault of the Railways and therefore, the complainant filed a complaint case before the Forum below but the same was opposed on the ground of jurisdiction that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum below on the ground that under section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 the jurisdiction of civil court or any other authority was barred and hence,

(3)

the ld. Forum has erred in passing an illegal order dated 4.1.1997 holding that the complaint was maintainable in the Forum below.

          Heard counsel for the revisionist. None appeared for the respondent.

          It is argued by the ld. counsel for the revisionist that there is specific bar under section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act whereby any claim for 'untoward incident' payable under section 124 and 124(a) by the railway administration has to be entertained only by the tribunal and no court or authority including the Consumer Fora shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the case relating to such claim. In support of his argument the ld. counsel for the revisionist has referred to section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which provides as under:-

          “Bar of jurisdiction- On and from the appointed day, no Court of 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.”

          He further cited the case law I(2002) CPJ 34 (NC), Southerns Railways vs. M. Chidambaram and II(2010) CPJ 234 (NC), Rakesh Patralekh vs. Union of India, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of seciton 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act but the Hon’nle National Commission in I(2017) CPJ 126 (NC), Union of India vs. Mansi Sanjay

(4)

Bhave & Anr., has held that section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is not attracted in the present  case and the consumer fora was competent to decide the complaint. It  transpires that the Hon’ble National Commission has while concluding that the consumer fora did have the jurisdiction to deal with the complaint pertaining to an ‘untoward incident’ relating to default of the Railways involving accident and has not only considered the ruling of Rakesh Patralekh vs. Union of India & Ors., the case cited by the revisionist in this case but has also  considered the case of concerned Southern Railways vs. M. Chidambaram cited by the revisionist in this  case and has thereafter, concluded that section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogaion of any other law for the time being inforce and thereafter, has held that Consumer Fora can exercise jurisdiction under the Act in cases when there is no specific bar. In Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, I(2008) CPJ 13(SC) the Apex Court has gone to the extent of saying that if two different Fora have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in  regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum would not be barred and the power of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate upon the dispute could not be negated. It is thus clear from the above that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides additional remedy to the consumer and as such the Consumer Fora are competent to entertain claims covered and filed under

(5)

the relevant section of the Railways Act, 1989/Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission, thereafter, dealing with the cases that could be filed under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, has concluded that the accidents and untoward incident are specified in sections 123, 124 and 124(a) of the Railway Act which could be covered as subject matter of Railway Claims Tribunal where the jurisdiciton of other court and authority would be barred but the  case of the complainant was not found covered under the aforesaid section hence, section 15 of he Railway Claims Tribunal Act was not  found attracted in the complainant’s case at hand and hence, it was concluded by the National Commission that Consumer Fora are competent to decide the present case.

          Considering the facts mentioned in the aforesaid case of Kishore Lal, we find that this complaint case also does not appear to be barred by Section 15 Railway Claims Tribunal Act and therefore, Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is not attracted in the facts of this case and this complaint case can not be held to be barred by Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The ld.  Forum has rightly concluded that under the circumstances of the case the complaint case was maintainable in the Forum below, therefore, the impugned order does not appear to be suffering from any irregularity or illegality. Therefore, the revision deserves to be dismissed.      

ORDER

          The revision is dismissed.

(6)

          The parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 3.7.2018.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                   (Vijai Varma)               (Raj Kamal Gupta)

               Presiding Member                    Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.2