DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.24 of 13-01-2012

Decided on 08-05-2012

Naresh Kumar, aged 52 years, son of Sh. Kaur Chand, R/o #138-B, Street No.7-B, Harpal Nagar, Bathinda. .......Complainant

Versus

1. Union of India, Ministry of Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, through its General Manager.

2. Station Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bathinda.

3. Station Superintendent, Northern Railway, Ratlam.

4. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt. ......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh. Rajan Singla, counsel for the complainant

For Opposite parties: Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite parties

ORDER

Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motorcycle baring Engine No.07K15E 60806, Chassis No.07K03F 35625 and Registration No.PB-03-R-1865 in the name of his son Rahul Goyal. The complainant booked the said motorcycle vide Goods Receipt No.P03-510022 dated 04.10.2011 with the opposite party No.2 for delivery of the same to opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.2 assessed the value of booked goods to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and charged Rs.1,097/- from the complainant and promised him to deliver the said motorcycle at destination within a week. The son of the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 many times for taking delivery of the said motorcycle but he failed to deliver the same. On 21.11.2011, the opposite party No.3 have in writing a N.R. (Not Received) i.e. the material has not been received by them. Thereafter, his son had to visit Raltam after taking leave from his office which is 60-70 kms from Ratlam. Even then the opposite parties failed to deliver the motorcycle. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to deliver the motorcycle or to pay Rs.25,000/- being the value of motorcycle as assessed by the opposite parties along with interest, cost and compensation.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written statement and pleaded that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as only the Railway Claims Tribunal has got the exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide the said complaint. In this context, the opposite parties have taken the support of case cited in 2008 (2) CLT page 93 (NC). The opposite parties have further pleaded that the complainant has concealed the fact whether the motorcycle was insured or he has taken any claim from any insurance company. Further, he has not disclosed the purchase price of the motorcycle as well as its market price. The value mentioned in the booking slip was only for the purpose of booking and not its actual price. The opposite parties have denied that the son of the complainant has been visiting the opposite parties as alleged.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record along with written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The allegation of the complainant is that vide Ex.C-3, he booked one motorcycle with the opposite party No.2 to delivery of the same to his son who is working at Banswara, Distt. Ratlam. At the time of booking the said parcel, the opposite party No.2 assessed its value to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and charged Rs.1,097/- from the complainant. The motorcycle in question has not yet been delivered to the son of the complainant despite his repeated visits to opposite party No.3.

6. On the other hand, submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as only the Railway Claims Tribunal has got the exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide the said complaint. He submitted that the value mentioned in the booking slip, was only for the purpose of booking and it was not the actual price of the motorcycle.

7. A perusal of receipt Ex.C-3 reveals that the complainant has got booked his aforesaid motorcycle from Bathinda for its delivery at Ratlam. The said motorcycle has not yet been delivered at its destination. The submission of the opposite parties is that instant complaint is not maintainable before this Forum in view of Section 13 & 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, which specifically bars the jurisdiction of civil court or any other authority in such matters, relate to compensation for loss of goods entrusted to Railways for carriage. Sections 13 & 15 are reproduced as under:-

   “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 82-A 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.

   [(1-A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of section 124-A 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 124-A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder].

   (2) The provisions of the 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.

   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) and (1-A)] of Section 13.”

   Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid sections, this Forum is of the considered view that the compliant in hand is not maintainable before this Forum. Moreover, in this regard, the support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Union of India Thru. General Manager, Northern Railway Vs Medical Systems & Services Through its Partner Mr. V.K. Monga, I(2012) CPJ 380 (NC) wherein it has been held:-

   “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 – Sections 13(1)(a)(i), 15 – Jurisdiction – Complaint – Maintainability of – Consignment of goods booked through OP – Delivery not made – Complaint filed and refund of value of goods claimed – Complaint allowed – Appeal before State Commission – Dismissed – Hence revision – Case of complainant would be covered by provisions of Section 13(1)(a)(i) of Act, 1987 as the allegation was non-delivery of goods that it had booked – Matter squarely falls within jurisdiction of competent Railway Claims Tribunal – This would clearly bar jurisdiction of Consumer Fora from entertaining complaints involving such claims – Forum below has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint – Impugned order set aside – Complainant directed to approach appropriate Forum. Result: Revision Petition Allowed.”

8. Thus, keeping in view the above mentioned sections and the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, the claims for Compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway do not come under the purview of 'Act' and no Court or other authority have the jurisdiction, powers or authority to decide such matters, only Railway Claims Tribunal is the competent authority and has a jurisdiction to entertain such matters.

9. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this compliant is not maintainable in this Forum and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/authority for his grievances, if so law permits.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '

Pronounced

08-05-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur) (Amarjeet Paul)

Member Member