Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
(3) Anil Kumar Singh
Member
Date of Order : 31.08.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to return their bundle of clothes as booked or to pay their bill as annexed in annexure – 1 to this application approx Rs. 1.5 Lakhs only along with 18% per annum interest.
- To direct the opposite parties pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 30,000/- as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased the clothes at different shops in Surat and booked in railway after paying the fare/charges and got receipt there of the photocopy of which has been annexed as annexure – 2 series. The aforesaid booking was done vide bill no. 877844 but due to negligence of respondent (opposite parties ) authorities the bundle of cloths were found opened due to theft and thereafter the complainant made complaint before competent authority.
It is further case of the complainant that thereafter respondent (opposite parties ) railway authority investigated the matter and submitted the report which envisages about shortage of cloths to the tune of Rs. 1,10,888/- values but declared that complainant is liable to be paid only Rs. 1,550/-. Complainant has further asserted that after the complaint by the complainant the respondent (opposite parties) authorities had ordered for open delivery of goods in claim case no. 4/misc./LK/PNBE/HJP1101300281/5/13-14 dated 03.06.2013 ( vide annexure – 4). The complainant thereafter has prayed before the respondent (opposite parties) authorities either to pay the claim amount or to return their cloths but authority has not redressed their grievance for which the complainant has made repeated request as will appear from annexure – 5.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1, 3 and 5 ( Railway Authority) a written statement has been filed in which it has been submitted that in terms of Section 13 and 15 of Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987 this Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case.
It has been further stated that the complainant should have preferred the claim U/s 106 of Railway Act 1989 before the Chief Commercial Manager, claims for the non – delivery of the consignment.
It has been further stated that value of the consignment of the complainant was not declared by the complainant and percentage charge was not paid and the consignment was booked for the weight only, hence the claim was settled for Rs. 1,550/-, Rs. 50/- per Kg for the loss or non – delivery of 31 Kg of consignment. This amount has been fixed as per section 103 of Railway Act 1989.
On behalf of opposite parties a judgment of this forum dated 08.09.2011 passed in complaint case no. 415/07 ( Saligram Jaiswal Vrs. Chief Commercial Manager (claim and refund) E.C. Railway, Patna & Others ) has been annexed, from perusal of which it appears that this forum has no jurisdiction to decide such claim cases in view of the bar contained in section 13 and 15 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987. Similarl view has been taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Patna vide order dated 09.09.2011 passed in 1st appeal no. 362/08 ( General Manager E.C. Railway Hajipur and another vrs. Md. Azmi). In Para – 7 of aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission referred above the following fact have been asserted, “the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no. 1108/07 Ram Balak Pandey Vrs. General Manager, Eastern Railway Gorakhpur, wherein the appeal against complaint entertained by the District Forum favourably decided against the Railway in respect of non delivery of consignment, was allowed by the State Commission by reversing the judgment of the District Forum and the order of the State Commission was upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission, wherein bar of jurisdiction as provided under section 15 of the Railway Claim tribunal Act 1987 as also the provision of section 13 of the said Act have been discussed and ultimately it was decided that the complaint under the Consumer protection Act was not maintainable and only remedy available for such aggrieved complainant was to lodge claim under the Railway Claim tribunal Act 1987.” The Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has accepted the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the order of the District Consumer Forum, Patna to the contrary was set aside.
No rejoinder has been filed by the complainant to the aforementioned fact stated by the respondents (opposite Parties) in their written statement.
-
The fact of both parties have been narrated briefly in the aforementioned paragraphs which is not being repeated. However,, after going through the citation referred above we find and hold that the complaint of the complainant cannot be decided by this forum due to bar of section 13 and 15 of Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987 because it oust the jurisdiction of this forum and other courts and the only remedy available to the complainant is to file claim under the Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987.
For the reason stated above we find and hold that this complaint is not maintainable before us in terms of provision of Railway Claim tribunal Act 1987 referred above. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach court of competent Jurisdiction/Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
Thus, this complaint stands dismissed as it is not maintainable with the aforesaid observation.
Member Member(F) President
