(Delivered on 10/10/2017)
PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
1. This appeal is filed by the original opposite party ( hereinafter referred to as appellant) feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29/04/2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in consumer complaint No. 106/2012, by which the complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The original complainant (hereinafter referred to as respondent) had filed a consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur making allegations in brief is as under,
The father of the respondent had booked two wheeler called as Motor Cycle with the appellant for its transportation from Ballarpur to Satana in Madhya Pradesh on 04/10/2011. However, the said vehicle did not reach to Satana. The respondent therefore, filed the consumer complaint against the appellant seeking direction to the appellant to return him the said motor cycle or alternatively to pay him Rs. 30,000/- towards price of the motor cycle and also to pay him further Rs. 30,000/- towards physical and mental harassment and further to pay him Rs. 30,000/- towards expenses incurred by him.
3. The District Consumer Forum issued notice to the appellant. The appellant failed to appear before the District Consumer Forum despite service of notice. Thus the District Consumer Forum proceeded exparte against the appellant.
4. The District Consumer Forum then considered the evidence brought on record by the respondent and came to the conclusion in the impugned order that the price of vehicle of Rs. 30,000/- is admitted by the respondent and considering depreciation in its value of Rs. 18,000/- the complainant /respondent is entitled to an amount of Rs. 12,000/- as the motor cycle booked by the respondent with appellant for transportation was not delivered at Satana. The District Consumer Forum therefore, directed the appellant to return the motor cycle within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the impugned order or alternatively to pay him Rs. 12,000/- within the period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of that order and appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for physical & mental harassment within the period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of that order.
5. As observed above, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the original opposite party /appellant herein has filed this appeal.
6. The respondent in person had appeared in appeal before this Commission on 03/06/2014. However, thereafter he failed to appear before this Commission till this date though the appeal came to be adjourned for twelve dates starting from 05/09/2014 till 19/07/2017. The appellant’s advocate filed Written Notes of Arguments. We have perused the same. We have perused the entire record of the appeal and proceeded to decide the appeal on merit. The respondent also failed to file Written Notes of Arguments.
7. The learned advocate of the appellant argued on two aspects of the case. Firstly he relied on the provisions of sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987 in support of his submission that there is bar of jurisdiction and secondly he argued that though in booking receipt the price of the vehicle is shown only Rs. 10,000/-, the District Consumer Forum awarded Rs.12,000/- towards price of vehicle. Thus, learned advocate of the appellant submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the father of the respondent who had booked the vehicle was not joined as party in the complaint. Therefore, he requested that impugned order may be set aside.
8. As per provisions of section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987 it is the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal under said Act to hear & decide the claim for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway. Moreover, as per section 15 of the said Act, 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) and (I-A)] of section 13 of the said Act.
9. The District Consumer Forum below has not considered the said provisions of Sections 13 & 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 while admitting the complaint. Moreover, the District Consumer Forum below has not considered the booking receipt in which the price of the vehicle is shown as Rs. 10,000/- and awarded Rs. 12,000/- towards price of the vehicle. We find that it is necessary to give opportunity to both the parties to make submission on the point of jurisdiction of the District Forum in the background of sections 13 & 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987. Hence, in order to give opportunity to both the parties to make said submission , and about other relevant aspects, it is necessary to set aside the impugned order and to remand the complaint to the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur for fresh hearing and deciding the complaint including the point of jurisdiction. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER
i. The appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The impugned order is set aside.
iii. The complaint is remanded to the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur.
iv. Both parties shall appear before the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur on 19/12/2017. In case the original complainant /respondent fails to appear before the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur on 19/12/2017 then District Consumer Forum shall issue notice to him for his appearance before it.
v. The appellant /original O.P. shall file reply to the complaint on 19/12/2017 and there upon the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur shall decide the point of jurisdiction as preliminary issue.
vi. No order as to cost in appeal.
vii. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost and its one copy be also forwarded to the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur for information and necessary action.
viii. The statutory amount deposited with the District Consumer Forum by the appellant be refunded to the appellant, after due verification.
