Chief Claim Officer, N.E. Railways, Gorakhpur Vs. Nawa Lal Bhagat. - Court Judgment

B.N. Sinha, President:

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 24th April, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Vaishali at Hajipur in Complaint Case No. 8 of 1991 in which the appellant was the opposite party and the respondent before this Commission was the complainant.

2. The complainant filed the case before the District Forum alleging as hereinafter mentioned. On 12.7.91 he booked 9 baskets of Mango Saplings valued at Rs. 11,000/- on payment of full freight amounting Rs. 439/ from Hajipur to Ratlam. The consignment was dispatched by Sabarmati Express on 13.7.91 from Hajipur which was ordinarily to reach at Ratlam Railway Station on 16.7.91. The complainant also boarded the same train for taking immediate delivery of the Mango Sapplings they being perishable in nature. But when he reached at Ratlam he found that the consignment booked by him did not reach Ratlam and he consequently complained to the Railway Authority at Ratlam but of no avail. Thereafter on 26.7.91 he made a claim of Rs. 11,000/- being the price of those sapplings before the Chief Claim Officer. But with no result and the complainant was informed vide letter dated 21.8.91 by O.P. No. 1 that the consignment had already been delivered to him (the complainant) by Chief Parcel Officer, Ratlam on 12.8.91 without any protest note and accordingly the claim for compensation was not maintainable. Thereafter the complainant filed this case before the District Forum claiming Rs. 14,203 /- inclusive of the price of those sapplings and other necessary expenses incurred by him against the opposite party.

3. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum to proceed with the case on the ground that under the provision of Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the Act of 1987) any other Court or authority is debarred to entertain such claims in respect of which the Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 13 of the Act of 1987 alone has jurisdiction, power and authority to enquire into and determine. It has been also averred that the consignment was delivered to the complainant on 12.8.91 under his signature and the delivery was taken by the complainant without any protest.

4. On the averment in the complainant petition and the counter version the District Forum decided the case and accepted the claim of the complainant and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 13,203/- to the complainant within one month from the receipt of the copy of this order.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum to proceed with the case on the ground that according to the provisions of the Act of 1987 the jurisdiction of any other Court or authority is barred to entertain such claims. To appreciate the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant it would be apt to quote the preamble of the Act of 1987 which reads as follows : —

“An Act to provide for the establishment of Railway Claims Tribunal for inquiring into the determining claims against a railway administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to it to be carried by railway or for the refund of fares or freight or for compensation for death or injury to passengers occurring as a result of railway accidents and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

6. Section 13 of the Act deals with jurisdiction, powers and authority to proceed with such claim and it reads as follows :

“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 exercises 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 Railway Act in respect of claims for—

(i) compensation for loss, destruction, damages 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 there under; 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.

(2) The provisions of the Railways Act and the Rules made there under shall, so far as may be applicable to the inquiring into or determining and claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act.”

7. Section 15 of the Act deals with the Bar of Jurisdiction to proceed with such claim and it reads as follows : —

“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) of Section 13.”

8. This complaint was filed before the District Forum on 10.9.91 and the Act of 1987 had already come into force. This section of the Act clearly lays down that a Court or any other authority is debarred from exercising jurisdiction powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in Section 13 of the Act of 1987. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act does not help the complainant. The Act of 1987 come into force after the Consumer Protection Act had come into force. Section 28 of the Act of 1987 provides that the Act of 1987 will have overriding effect. It reads as follows : —

“28. Act to have overriding effect—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding any thing 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.”

9. At the time of filing of the complaint, the Act of 1987 was in force and admittedly the Claims Tribunals had already been established. For these reasons the claim of the complainant could not be entertained, heard and determined by the District Forum. The contrary view taken by the District Forum was not justified. Hence the impugned order can not be sustained.

10. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. There is, however, no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.