ORDER : In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seek quashment of the orders dated 09.10.2015 and 21.05.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Commission' for short) as well as Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission' for short) respectively. In order to appreciate the petitioners challenge to the impugned order, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra. 2. On 24.01.2011, father of respondent No.1 while alighting from the train, fell down and was killed. The respondents thereupon sent a notice on 12.09.2011 to the petitioner and thereafter filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-for the death of late Bheemanagouda. The District Commission by an order dated 21.04.2012 inter alia held that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act has an overriding effect on other provisions of law. Therefore, the complaint in respect of the accident in question lies before the Consumer Forum. Accordingly, the District Commission awarded a sum of Rs.2.55 Lakhs along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. An appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission by an order dated 09.10.2015 inter alia held that the liability under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) arises only in relation to responsibility of the Railway administration as carriers and not in relation to accident. Accordingly, it was held that the District Commission has rightly entertained the complaint filed by the respondents. The State Commission awarded a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Commission as well as the State Commission erred in not appreciating that it has no jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1986 Act' for short) to entertain a complaint arising out of an accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers and the claim for compensation could have been made under the Act only. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the issue with regard to maintainability of the proceedings under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,1986 has already been adjudicated by Division Bench of this court vide order dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.25096/2010. 5. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123(c)(2) of the Act defines the expression 'untoward incident', as follows: 123(c) untoward incident. (1) xxxxxx (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 6. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 deals 6 with claim for Compensation on account of untoward incident. Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as under: 124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.—When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to— (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “passenger” includes— (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. 7. Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for application for compensation, which reads as under: 125. 7. Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for application for compensation, which reads as under: 125. Application for compensation.— (1) An application for compensation under section 124 27 [or section 124A] may be made to the Claims Tribunal— (a) by the person who has sustained the injury or suffered any loss, or (b) by any agent duly authorised by such person in this behalf, or (c) where such person is a minor, by his guardian, or (d) where death has resulted from the accident, 27 [or the untoward incident] by any dependant of the deceased or where such a dependant is a minor, by his guardian. (2) Every application by a dependant for compensation under this section shall be for the benefit of every other dependant. 8. It is pertinent to take note of Section 13 of the Act, which defines jurisdiction, powers and authority of the claims tribunal. Section 13 as well as Section 15 of the Act read 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 82A 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. (1A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of section 124A 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 124A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder (1B) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017 the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on the Tribunal under Chapter VII of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989). (2) The provisions of the 6 [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 7 [sub-sections(1) and (1A)] of section 13. 9. The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the Railways Act, 1989 are special laws and deal specifically with the accidental falling of a passenger. Section 15 of the Act contains a non obstante clause, therefore, if the provisions of Section 123(c)(2), Section 124A and Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 and Section 13(1A) and Section 15 of the Act are read in conjunction, it is evident that Railway Claims Tribunal under the provisions of the Act alone has jurisdiction to deal with the grievance pertaining to compensation in respect of a passenger who has accidentally fallen from a passenger train. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has neither been dealt with by the District Commission nor by the State Commission. The order passed by the District Commission as well as State Commission suffer from error apparent on the face of the record and jurisdiction infirmity. 10. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has neither been dealt with by the District Commission nor by the State Commission. The order passed by the District Commission as well as State Commission suffer from error apparent on the face of the record and jurisdiction infirmity. 10. So far as submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that the controversy in this petition is squarely covered by an order dated 08.09.2010, passed by a division bench of this court in W.P.No.25096/2010 (The General Manager and Others vs. Sri.Shivanand Katti) is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the aforesaid decision was rendered in context of settlement arrived at between the parties. The relevant extract of the order reads as under: Further, it is needless to clarify that the settlement arrived between the parties having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, shall not be a precedent to the Consumer Forum in future, to adjudicate the mater falling under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 11. In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has not dealt with the issue pertaining to maintainability of a claim for compensation in respect of a person who has fallen from a passenger train. The decision was rendered in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is of no assistance to the respondents. For the aforementioned reasons, the orders dated 09.10.2015 and 21.05.2012 passed by the District Commission as well as the State Commission are hereby quashed. Needless to state that the respondents shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them in law for claiming of compensation in respect of death of Bheemanagouda. In the result, the petition is allowed.