DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.78 of 28.3.2007<br /> Decided on : 22.8.2007<br /> <br /> A.P Singh (SGT in Air Force) S/o Sh. Des Raj Singh, R/o 240 SU Air Force Station Bhisiana, District Bathinda.<br /> Complainant<br /> Versus <br /> <br /> 1. Station Superintendent, northern Railway, Railway Station, Bathinda.<br /> 2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Division, Ambala.<br /> 3. Union of India (Ministry of Indian Railway), Govt. of India, Baroda House, New Delhi through its Secretary.<br /> 4. Divisional Railway Manager,Chennai Division, Chennai-600 003. <br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Kumar, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant, who is serving as SGT in the Indian Air Force, was transferred from Avadi (Chennai) to Bhisiana (Bathinda) in May, 2006. As per rules, Air Force Unit MTTI, Air Force Avadi had issued Party Warrant No. IAFT-1707 Sr. No. 02CC-597205 for him, his family and for his Scooter. When Party Warrant is so issued, no tariff is charged by the Railway under the rules from the concerned person. It is charged by the Railway from the concerned department which issues the Party Warrant. Columns of the Party Warrant are filled in by the concerned official of the Air Force and * marked is to be filled by the concerned Railway officials. This fact is clearly mentioned on the Warrant. Warrant was presented by the complainant to the Luggage Booking Clerk on 31.5.2006 at about 7.30 P.M at Chennai Central Railway before starting the journey. Booking Clerk refused to accept the accept the Party Warrant and refused to fill the portion marked as *. He refused to book the Scooter on the basis of the Warrant. Rather, threat was extended by him to cancel the ticket (Party Warrant) if full charges for booking the Scooter to the tune of Rs. 4,500/- were not paid. Accordingly, he charged Rs. 4,500/- for booking the luggage and Scooter No. UP-84A-4526. Upper part of the warrant was kept by the Booking Clerk, the columns of which were filled in by the Air Force Authority in which Scooter was specifically mentioned. It is in possession of the opposite parties. Receipt for Rs. 4,500/- was issued by the Booking Clerk without giving the details thereof. Complainant lodged complaint at Chennai Central Railway Station vide No. 294753 dated 31.5.2006 at 2100 hrs. Scooter was booked from Chennai Central (T.N Express) to Bathinda via Delhi. In these circumstances, complainant alongwith his family started journey from Chennai Central in T.N Express. Unit MTTI Air Force Avadi (Chennai) and 240 SU Air Force Bhisiana (Bathinda) also lodged complaints with the officials of the opposite parties in July, 2006 and August, 2006 intimating that Party Warrant was duly filled in by the Air Force Authority and Scooter was specifically mentioned in it. On 14.8.2006, opposite parties issued letter to the complainant refusing to refund the excess money charged from him. He (complainant) assails this letter as illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice. He further alleges that act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused him mental agony, pains and suffering as they hve failed to provide service. In these circumstances, complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund charges for Scooter (as per rules) alongwith interest @ 18% P.A; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; it is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of Union of India, Ministry of Defence which is a necessary party; complainant is estopped from filing it by his act and conduct; complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action; complaint is false and frivolous and this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. They admit that columns of the Party Warrant are filled in by the concerned official of the Defence Authority. Complainant had got exchanged the upper portion of the Party Warrant at Passenger Reservation System Centre with a Journey-cum-Reservation Ticket. He has not mentioned the date of exchange of upper portion of the warrant nor has he produced copy of the Journey-cum-Reservation Ticket. Luggage Warrant No. 02CC-597205 presented by the complainant towards cost of transportation of his luggage and Scooter did not indicate the total weight of luggage and Scooter authorised by the Issuing Authority. Further, the column Motor/Padal Cycle was left blank. Defect was pointed out to the complainant, who frankly admitted it and became ready to make payment. Complainant was not authorised by the Defence Authority to carry his luggage and Scooter free of cost. After the defect in the luggage warrant was pointed out, complainant had paid the charges for carrying the luggage and Scooter. As per the prevalent system, luggage warrant issued by the Defence Authority on its reverse portion is stamped and signed by the Issuing Authority and weight of luggage/stores etc. authorised to be conveyed at Government expenses are mentioned. Accordingly, Luggage Clerk fills the details on the front portion of the Luggage Warrant and allows Railway's free allowance. Against the luggage warrant charges are collected by the Railways from the Defence Authority. Against upper portion of the warrant also the charges are collected by the Railways from the Defence Authority for passenger reservation. Complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint. They admit that complainant had booked Scooter and luggage from Chennai to Bathinda on 31.5.2006 against payment of total charges of Rs. 4,500/-. It is added by them that perusal of the luggage warrant clearly shows that Issuing Authority did not certify and authorise under his hand and seal that complainant was authorised to carry Scooter or any luggage. No fare is charged from the person or his family, if so authorised in the Party Warrant and further no tariff is charged for the luggage, if so authorised by the Issuing Defence Authority specifically for the luggage. Luggage Clerk is to fill in the front portion of the luggage warrant only if there is authorisation of the Issuing Defence Authority. Complainant had already got exchanged top portion of the warrant from Passenger Reservation System Centre with Journey-cum-Reservation Ticket. Complainant has not intentionally disclosed the date of presentation of the upper portion of the Party Warrant. Complainant had presented only luggage warrant on 31.5.2006 with Luggage Booking Clerk for booking five Steel Trunks, one Wooden Box, Four Gunny Bundles and one Scooter i.e. 11 items in total. Issuing Defence Authority did not authorise him under his hand seal that complainant was authorised to carry this luggage and Scooter. In the absence of authorisation, concerned Luggage Clerk could not act on his own and fill in the relevant portion without any authorisation. Warrant did not satisfy the requisite requirements for booking luggage/Scooter against Railway's free allowance. After carefully examining the complaint, reply dated 14.8.2006 was sent by them. They deny that letter dated 14.8.2006 is illegal, null and void and arbitrary. Other averments in the complaint stand denied.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, A.P Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1& Ex.C.8), photocopy of Luggage Warrant No.02CC-597205 (Ex.C.2), photocopy of complaint dated 31.5.2006 (Ex.C.3), photocopies of letters (Ex.C.4, Ex.C.5 and Ex.C.7 respectively), photocopy of Luggage Ticket (Ex.C.6), photocopy of warrant (Ex.C.9) and photocopy of ticket (Ex.C.10). <br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. D.K. Singh, Station Superintendent, photocopies of warrants (Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.3) & photocopies of letters dated 23.7.2007 & 18.7.2007 (Ex.R.4 & Ex.R.5) respectively.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered the written arguments submitted by the complainant.<br /> 6. Mr. Garg learned counsel for the opposite parties vociferously argued that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as complainant claims the relief of refund of the freight charges paid by him for booking the Scooter and further compensation for mental agony, pains and suffering for not allowing him Railway's free allowance against his Scooter. The remedy, if any, of the complainant is under the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.<br /> 7. Mr. Naresh Garg learned counsel for the complainant submitted that as per section 3 of the Act, its provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Hence, Section 15 read with Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, 1987 cannot stand as a bar for this Fora for entertaining and trying this complaint. <br /> 8. We have considered respective arguments. Section 13 (1) (b), 15 and 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read as under :- <br /> “13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal:-<br /> ( 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. <br /> ( a ) xxxxx<br /> ( b ) In respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway;<br /> 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-section (1) of Section 13; <br /> 28. Act to have overriding effect:- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or is any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”<br /> 9. As per Section 13(1)( b ) as reproduced above, reveals that jurisdiction to grant refund of the fare is with the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1987. Its Section 15 bars jurisdiction of other courts and authorities to deal with such matters as are covered under section 13(1)(b) of the Act of 1987. The provisions of the Act of 1987 have overriding effect on the provisions of other statutes as provided under section 28, referred to above. As mentioned above, complainant is claiming the relief of refund for extra freight/fare charges. Section 3 of the Act of 1986 comes to play if in any other law, there is no bar of jurisdiction. There is specific Section 15 of the Act of 1987 creating bar of jurisdiction of other courts or authorities. Once a bar is created by competent legislation, Section 3 of the Act of 1986 would not come into play. Accordingly, we hold that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Union of India & others Vs. M/s. Manko Industries-First Appeal No. 161 of 2006 decided on 25.7.2006 and Union of India, Northern Railway Vs. Surdarshan Kapoor-1998(1)CLT-364. Reference can also be made to the authorities Union of India and another Vs. Adaikalam-1993(1)CLT-550 and M/s. Sai Traders Vs. Union of India and others-1994(2)CPC-407.<br /> 10. In view of our foregoing discussion, complaint before this Forum is not maintainable as it has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try it for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Before parting with order, it is made clear that complainant is at liberty to get his grievances redressed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, if so advised and permitted by law. There is no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 22.8.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />