The complainant/respondent purchased a circular journey railway ticket from Ahmedabad to Ahmedabad. His case is that though he travelled only 5277 kms, he was charged for 5629 kms. The complainant therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- including excess fare charged, medical expenses, physical loss and mental agony. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which disputed the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the said complaint. 2. The District Forum vide its order dated 20.01.2017, dismissed the complaint, holding that in view of the provisions contained in Section 13(1)(b) and Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the said Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Thus, the complaint was not adjudicated on merit by the District Forum. 3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal, which set aside the order passed by the District Forum and directed it to dispose of the complaint on merits. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 4. Section 13(1)(b) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: 13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal— 1. The Claims Tribunal 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 Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act,- in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid inrespect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway.
(1A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration under section 124A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 15 of the said Act reads as under: “Section 15 in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 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-sections (1) and (1A) of section 13.” 5. It would thus be seen that in view of the bar contained in Section 15 of the above referred Act, the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, to the extent it related to refund of the excess fare alleged to have been charged from the complainant. The said Forum however, did possess the requisite jurisdiction to award compensation for the deficiency alleged by the complainant on the part of the petitioner in rendering services to him. Compensation for the alleged deficiency in service cannot be awarded by the Railway Accidents Claim Tribunal. Therefore, the District Forum is required to adjudicate upon the complaint only to the extent it pertains to the compensation (exclusive of excess fare) claimed by the complainant. The District Forum will not adjudicate on the complaint to the extent it pertains to excess fare charged from the complainant. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. | 
