Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

Challenge under this appeal is the Order dated 05-07-2013, passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah (in short, District Forum) in C. C. No. 27/2013, whereby the complaint case has been allowed.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, OP No. 2 thereof has preferred this appeal.

Briefly stated, case of the Complainant, is that, he booked a saloon chair with the OP No. 1 vide Luggage Ticket No. A2796013 dated 02-08-2012 for sending the same to Katpadi Junction by Howrah-Yashbantapur Express.  Complainant also travelled by the same train.  After reaching destination, i.e., Katpadi Junction, when he went to receive the saloon chair from the parcel section, the concerned officials feigned ignorance about the whereabouts of the said chair. Written complaint lodged in this regard with the authorities concerned did not yield any positive result either.  Finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed the case before the Ld. District Forum.

Notice sent to the OP No. 1 returned back with the postal remark, ‘not known’.  Treating this as good service, the Ld. District Forum adjudicated the case ex parte against it.

OP No. 2 contested the case by filing W.V.  Besides denying all the material allegations, this OP contended that the present dispute has wrongly been preferred before this Forum.  According to it, the Complainant should have approached the Railway Claims Tribunal for appropriate relief. According to this OP, there being no merit in the complaint petition, the same was a fit case for dismissal.

Point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity, or not.

Decision with reasons

We have heard the submission made by the Ld. Advocates of respective parties. We have also perused the materials on record including a citation referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, viz., a decision of U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in III (2006) CPJ 434.

It appears from the impugned order that although notice sent to the OP No. 1 returned unserved with the postal endorsement, ‘not known’; assuming it as good service, the Ld. District Forum went ahead and adjudicated the case.  We must make it clear that it was completely a misnomer on the part of the Ld. District Forum to derive at such conclusion as the same has got no legal footing.

Be that as it may, in view of the stiff opposition being put forth from the side of the Appellant about maintainability of this case, let us consider whether Consumer Forum is the proper place to adjudicate disputes related to loss of goods.

For better illustration, let us consider the various stipulations of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Sec. 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,—

(a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for—

(i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway;

(ii) compensation payable under section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and

(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.

 [(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.]

(2) The provisions of the ⁶ [Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989)] and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act.

Sec. 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 ⁷[sub-sections (1) and (1A)] of section 13.

Sec. 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 in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

On a plain reading of the aforesaid Sections, we find that, the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has vested exclusive jurisdiction on the Railway Claims Tribunal to deal with the following types of cases;

1. claims for compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods; (b) claims for refund of fares or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods; and (c) claims in respect of railway accidents.

As we know, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law which may be in force. Therefore, whenever there arises any conflict in respect any stipulation of the Consumer Protection Act vis-à-vis other Act, extreme caution requires to be taken so as to ensure that in the process of adjudicating a case under the 1986 Act, we do not overstep our jurisdiction.  There is no need to think that this beneficial legislation is a pill to cure all ills.  Being the creature of the Statute, we have to maneuver within the boundary set forth by our Hon’ble legislators.

In the case of the above three types of claims, seemingly, the legislature has ousted the jurisdiction of all Civil Courts and other Authorities, including the Consumer Fora and vested exclusive jurisdiction upon the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Consumer Protection Act cannot override the bar under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, and hence complaints in respect of the above classes of cases cannot be filed before the Consumer Fora.

The present dispute being hovering around loss of goods, to our mind, Respondent No. 1 has chosen a wrong Forum to agitate his grievance.  Clearly, by adjudicating the case, the Ld. District Forum exceeded its terms of reference.  For this very reason, the same cannot be upheld.

Considering the merit of the appeal, we are inclined to allow it.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that FA/1244/2013 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondent No. 1 and dismissed ex parte against the Respondent No. 2.  The impugned order is hereby set aside. 

Respondent No. 1 would be at liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate Forum.  He may seek relief for excluding the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit in terms of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, reported in 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583.