1.       This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 27.06.2014 of the State Commission in appeal no. 264 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 31.01.2007 of the District Commission in complaint no. 26 of 2005.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the railways (the petitioner herein) and the learned counsel for the complainant (the respondent no. 1 herein). No one appears for the consignee (the respondent no. 2 herein). We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 31.01.2007 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 27.06.2014 of the State Commission and the petition.

3.       The petition has been filed with reported delay of 100 days. Learned counsel for the railways submits that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay, and requests that the delay in filing the petition be condoned. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he has no objection to the delay being condoned, and requests that the petition may be decided on merit. 

In the interest of justice, considering the submissions of the learned counsel, to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the petition is condoned.

4.       Briefly, as is garnered from the appraisals made by the two fora below, proved facts of the case are that the complainant was earning his livelihood by means of self-employment by selling books. He sent back unsold books through the railways’ parcel service to the consignee i.e. the publisher on 09.06.2003 and paid the consideration therefor in full. The value of the consignment was Rs. 54,998/-. But the consignment was not delivered to the consignee by the railways. He pursued the matter in the department time and again but his grievance was not redressed. He then made a claim with the railways authorities. He received a belated response vide letter dated 27.10.2004 from the railways intimating him that his claim has been rejected as being time-barred since the consignment was booked on 09.06.2003 and the claim was registered on 19.08.2004 whereas under Section 106 of The Railway Act, 1989 the claim was to be filed within six months from the date of entrustment of the goods. This caused him to prefer a complaint with the District Commission on 08.04.2005, which was well within the two-year limitation period stipulated under section 24A of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.        

The District Commission vide its Order dated 31.01.2007 allowed the complaint on contest. It ordered the railways to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.54,998/- i.e. the value of the consignment with interest at the rate of 15% per annum along with Rs. 500/- towards compensation.

The State Commission vide its Order dated 27.06.2014 dismissed the appeal filed by the railways. 

5.       The point of fact involved in this case is whether the consignment was entrusted by the complainant with the railways but was not delivered to the consignee by it. The same has been conclusively established by the District Commission and the State Commission in their respective independent appraisals, and is also not being agitated on behalf of the railways in the arguments today.

6.       The point of law involved is whether the complaint before the District Commission was maintainable. Objections re maintainability were taken by the railways before the District Commission and also before the State Commission. Both the fora dismissed the objections. The same are however being pressed on behalf of the railways in the arguments today.

7.       Learned counsel for the railways argues that section 13 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 confers upon the claims tribunals established thereunder the jurisdiction relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations in respect of loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods and that section 15 of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of any other court or authority in relation to matters referred to in section 13 thereof. He also argues that under section 106 of The Railways Act, 1989 a person is not entitled to claim compensation against a railway administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods unless a notice is served by him or on his behalf within a period six months from the date of entrustment of the goods. The submission is that in the light of the afore-referred provisions the ‘complaint’ before the District Commission was not maintainable.

8.       Learned counsel for the complainant argues that in the normal wont of functioning of consumer protection fora established under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now The Consumer Protection Act, 2019) cases of ‘deficiency’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ as defined under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (/2019) against the railways are decided by the fora on a regular basis. The submission is that it is now a settled proposition of law that ‘complaints’ alleging ‘deficiency’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ are maintainable before the consumer protection fora and there is scarcely any reason to unjustifiably keep on agitating on maintainability when the loss and injury occurred way back in 2003 and the genesis or the causa causans of the matter i.e. the railways in fact did not deliver the consignment entrusted with it to the consignee stands proved and is now not even being disputed any further.

9.   The issue of maintainability of ‘complaint’ in respect of ‘deficiency’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(g) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or ‘unfair trade practice’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(r) (or for that matter ‘restrictive trade practice’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(nnn)) despite other specific legislative enactments relating to different operational areas of service or trade is now no longer res integra and it is not required to unnecessarily dilate on this aspect all over again. It is well-settled that the additional alternative remedy provided to the ‘consumer’ vide section 3 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in order to seek remedy for the loss and injury suffered due to ‘deficiency’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ as defined under the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. It is relevant that the provision aiming to redress the scourge of ‘unfair trade practice’ i.e. a trade practice for the promotion of any service wherein any unfair method or unfair & deceptive practice is adopted is unique to The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that section 14(1)(f) of the said Act even confers the power to make ‘direction’ to discontinue the ‘unfair trade practice’ or not to repeat it. The wide-reaching ambit and scope of the provisions relating to the malady of ‘deficiency’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ and the enabling provisions which provide for their remedy are distinctively within the exclusive domain of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The provisions are especial and unique. Establishment of claims tribunals under The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 does not in any way infringe upon or fetter the additional alternative remedy available to ‘consumer’ to seek remedy by instituting a ‘complaint’ apropos ‘deficiency’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ before the consumer protection fora established under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No doubt the ‘doctrine of election’ or in simpler words the right of the ‘consumer’ to elect the forum to seek remedy against the wrong done is of material significance. It concomitantly goes without saying that the general principle obtains that the same remedy for the same wrong cannot be sought all over again in parallels or subsequently in another forum of concurrent jurisdiction. Also, as far as the provision of section 106 of The Railways Act, 1989 and the aspect of adherence thereto is concerned, it could only be a relevant and material facet to be considered while adjudging ‘deficiency’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ but the same can by no stretch of imagination be construed to imply that the jurisdiction of the consumer protection fora itself stands ousted. It may be one of the moot points before the consumer protection fora to see whether there has been any unjustified infringement of the provisions of section 106 on the part of the complainant and if so what shall be its consequential effect on the merits in his complaint or the evidentiary value of the same, but some alleged breach of this section can in no way be taken to imply that the jurisdiction of the consumer protection fora stands ousted.

10.     The facts of the case have been undisputedly proved. The point of law as has been raised regarding maintainability is seen to be unfounded. We do not find any good reason to interfere with the award made by the District Commission as upheld by the State Commission, which on the face of it itself appears to be just and equitable in the facts of the case. 

11.     The petition stands dismissed.

The amount if any deposited by the railways with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 07.01.2016 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the District Commission to the complainant as per the due procedure. The balance awarded amount shall be made good by the railways within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.

12.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.