A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bombay, dated September 5, 1995, in Misc. Application No. 13 of 1994.
2. The petitioners had filed suit on the Original Side of this Court, being Suit No. 1049 of 1974, praying for the reliefs which read thus :
'8. The plaintiffs, therefore, prays :
(a) that the defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 42,628.00 p. as mentioned in para 5 above together with future Interest on the said amount at the rate of 12% p.m. from the date of the suit till full payments;
(b) that the defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs full costs of the suit;
(c) that the Court may pass such other orders as may deem just and proper.'
Besides the prayer clause, it would be appropriate to advert to para 5 of the plaint, which is referred to in prayer Clause (a), the same reads thus :
'5. The particulars of the claim are as follows :
Rs. P. 33526.00The Total amount.9052.00Interest on the total amount at the rate of12% p.a. from June 1968 till date of suit.50.00 Notice charges
42628.00Total amount.00000.00Less Part payment if any
42628.00Balance still due.'
3. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit in this Court, the Parliament enacted the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. By virtue of Section 13 of the said Act. the jurisdiction to decide the matters relating to the responsibility of the railway administration as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of the claims, compensation for loss, destruction, damages, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railways; compensation payable under Section 82-A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and in respect of the claims for refund of arrears 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, are made exclusively triable by the Railway Claims Tribunal established under the said Act. Section 13 of the said Act which is relevant for our purpose, would read this :
'13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal, (a) 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, damages, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railways;
(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 arrears 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 thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the Inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act.'
4. In view of the aforesaid provisions, all the claims which were covered by the provisions of the Act of 1987, pending before the different Civil Courts, stood transferred to the Claims Tribunal established under the Act of 1987. In the circumstances, the suit filed by the petitioners on the Original Side of this Court also stood transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal at Bombay and came to be renumbered as Transferred Case No. ER/9300003. After the records were transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bombay, the plaint filed before this Court was treated as a Claim Petition. In the said case, the petitioners filed application being Misc. Application No. 13 of 1994, inter alia, contending that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the transferred case; and prayed that the same be transferred back to the High Court at Bombay from where it was received by the Tribunal for trial. The premise on which the said application proceeds is that the suit filed by the petitioners On the Original Side of this Court is one for recovery of amount on the ground of breach of contract and such a claim cannot be tried by the Claims Tribunal which is specially treated under the Act of 1987 to try and adjudicate only those matters which are enumerated under Section 13 of the Act. However, the Tribunal, by the impugned order, dated September 5, 1985, was pleased to reject the said application on the principle ground that the claim set up by the petitioners is essentially a claim for recovery of undercharge and not for damages for breach of contract. It is this opinion returned by the Tribunal which is the subject-matter of this writ petition.
5. After having analysed Section 13 of the Act, the plain language of the said provision would indicate that any claim for refund of freight 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 is exclusively triable by the Claims Tribunal established under the Act of 1987. It would be apposite to make reference to Section 15 of the Act which postulates bar of jurisdiction in so far as matters which are to be tried and decided by the Claims Tribunals. Section 15 of the Act reads thus :
'15. Bar of jurisdiction.-- On and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise to exercise, power or authority in relation to the matters referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 13.'6. Having regard to the aforesaid provisions. It is not open to contend that the claim enumerated in the petition, though covered within the ambit of the claim enumerated in Section 13 of the Act, could still be entertained by the Court other than the Claims Tribunal. Such a plea will have to be merely stated to be rejected. Inasmuch as, in such a situation, the bar under Section 15 would straightway step In, in which case no other Court would be competent to try or decide the matter/claim covered under Section 13 of the Act. Understood thus, in the present case, since the reliefs claimed in the plaint are essentially one for refund of the amount recovered from the petitioners as undercharges, being sum of Rs. 33,526.00, and the other amount specified is, towards the interest and notice charges the claim is clearly one for refund of freight rates paid on behalf of the petitioners and recovered by the railway administration from the petitioners under the head of undercharges. A fortiori, the claim is covered by Section 13 of the Act of 1987. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, made an unsuccessful attempt to persuade this Court to take a view that the claim set up by the petitioners is one outside the ambit of Section 13 of the Act. The buttress this submission reliance is placed on the assertions in the plaint, to contend that, the claim is founded on the ground that there has been breach of the terms and conditions of contract; and, therefore, a claim for damages as such. On the plain language of Section 13 of the Act, the tribunal has merely to examine the claim or the relief set up by the petitioner and not be swayed away or influenced by the averments in the petition. Proprio vigore, if the relief(s) in the claim petition (plaint) is one or more of the categories of claim enunciated in Section 13 of the Act, then such relief writ have to be tried and decided only by the Claims Tribunal. Understood thus, though the averments in the plaint may incidentally make out a case for ground of search of terms and conditions of contract, but that would not make any difference to the nature of claim made in the plaint or the Claim Petition. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in observing that, essentially the claim set up on behalf of the petitioners in the petition is for refund of the amount recovered from the petitioners under the head of undercharges and thus claim for refund of freight paid in respect of goods entrusted to railway administration to be carried by railways. On facts, there is no dispute that amount of recovery towards undercharges from the petitioners was in respect of freight for the goods entrusted to railway administration which were carried by the railways, in the circumstances, I find no substance in this petition and the same deserve to be dismissed. The petition, therefore falls and is dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.
7. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioners prays that since the matter pertains to suit filed in this Court in the year 1974 and the case has been transferred after establishment of the Claim Tribunal, it would be just and appropriate that the case pending before the Tribunal is disposed of expeditiously. This request is quite reasonable. The Tribunal may expedite the hearing of the aforesaid case and finally dispose of preferably within six months from the receipt of writ of this petition. Order accordingly.