Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1087 (ALL)

UNION OF INDIA v. B. M. ELECTRIC PRESS

1999-07-30

D.S.SINHA, O.BHATT

body1999
( 1 ) HEAD Shri Lal Ji Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Despite being duly served, the respondents have not put in appearance to contest the petition ( 2 ) THE order dated 8th June, 1992 passed by the District consumer Redressal Forum, Aligarh, the respondent No. 2, established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter called the Consumer Protection Act, purporting to allow the Claim petition No. 323 of 1991 M/s B. M. Electric Press, Aligarh Vs. Union of India and another, is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel of the petitioners contends that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, hereafter called the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. ( 4 ) ON 30th May, 1989, M/s Hindustan paper Board corporation Ltd. booked with Northern Railway 383 bundles of papers from Panchgram Railway Station to Aligarh in favour of the respondent no. 1 During the course of delivery of the goods it was discovered that that one bundle of papers was short and 20 bundles were damaged. This let the respondent no. 1 file before the respondent no. 2 the Claim Petition No. 323 of 1991, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter to as the Consumer protection Act, in November, 1991, for loss and damages of the goods in question. ( 5 ) UPHOLDING the claim of the respondent no. 1. the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 8th June 1992 directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 7,849. 50 Paise together with 12% interest with effect from June 1989,and Rs. 100 / by way of costs. ( 6 ) SECTION 15 of the Railway claims Tribunal Act, provides that 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 of the Act. ( 7 ) THE matters referred to in sub section (1) of section 13 of the Act, inter alia cover the compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway. ( 7 ) THE matters referred to in sub section (1) of section 13 of the Act, inter alia cover the compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway. ( 8 ) THUS, on and form the appointed day, no Court or other authority had or is entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the claim for compensation for loss destruction, damage, deterioration non delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway. ( 9 ) THE appointed day has been defined in sub section (b)of section 2 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act to mean the date with effect from which the Claims Tribunal is established under Section 3 of the Act which ordains that the Central Government shall by notification, establish a Claims Tribunal to be know as the Railway claims Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction powers, and authority conferred on it by or under the Act. ( 10 ) IN exercise of powers conferred under section 3 of the railway Claims Tribunal Act, the Central Government issued a notification dated 5th October 1989, published in Gazette of India extra part II section 3 (ii), dated 5th October 1989, P. 2, purporting to establish Railway Claims Tribunal with effect form the 8th day of november 1989and declaring the said to be a appointed day within the meaning of Clause (b) of section 2 of the Railway Claims tribunal Act. ( 11 ) IN view of the establishment of the Railway Claims tribunal with effect from 8th November 1989, and declaration of that date to be the appointed day, for the purpose of section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 8th November, 1989 is the appointed day, and from that date jurisdiction of every court or other authority in relation to the matters covered in sub section (1)and (1-A)of section 13 of the Act stands clearly excluded. ( 12 ) THUS, in November 1991, when the respondent no. 1 had filed the complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Aligarh the respondent No 2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint likewise, on 8th June, 1992, the Forum did not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Entire proceedings before the respondent no. 1 had filed the complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Aligarh the respondent No 2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint likewise, on 8th June, 1992, the Forum did not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Entire proceedings before the respondent no. 2 were totally without jurisdiction, rendering the impugned order void. ( 13 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 8th June 1992 , a photocopy whereof is anexxure 2 to the petition is quashed. There is no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. .