1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals Nos.719/2010 and 441/2010.

2.       Case of the Complainant/Petitioner is that on the night of 05/06 October, 2004, he was travelling in Mathura-Lucknow Express train. Due to some reason the train stopped between Itmadpur and Tundla. In between some wrong doers entered in the reserved coach, while some others threw stones on the train. In the incident, one eye of the Complainant got damaged. There was neither Conductor nor TTE nor Security Guard in the train. On 06.10.2004, the Complainant was to be present as an Advocate in the Labour Court/Central Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur. Due to injury in the eye, the Complainant failed to appear in the Court, due to which adverse orders got passed in his cases. The Complainant could not attend to his work till date of filing the Complaint i.e. 01.06.2005 and sustained loss of approximately Rs.1991382/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint with the District Forum with the following prayer: -

“a.    Applicant/complainant is to be provided the compensation as mentioned in para number 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the application total of Rs.19,91,382/- (Ninteen Lac Ninety One Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Two Rupees).

b.       On the aforesaid amount paid the interest is to be provided reasonably.

c.       Kindly provide the litigation expenses to the applicant/complainant.

d.       Any other relief which Hon’ble Court deems reasonable is to be provided.”

3.       The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing the written statement on the ground that the Consumer Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. The Opposite Party also disputed the fact that some wrongdoers entered the reserved coaches. It was stated that there was proper security in the train. It was denied that there was no TTE or Security Guard in the train. The Opposite Party, however, admitted that the train stopped between Itmadpur and Tundla and some Gundas attacked the train in the night of 5/6.10.2014.

4.       The District Forum, after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties, vide order dated 11.02.2010, partly allowed the Complaint with the following direction:-

“Complaint is admitted partly. It is hereby directed to the opposite parties that they within 45 days of this decision should pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lac Rupees) to the complainant. Complainant could receive the a mount of Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses from the opposite parties. In the time period fixed in case of not paying of amount of compensation the yearly interest ate the rate of 06 per cent is to be recovered from opposite parties from the date of presenting the complaint till the payment on the amount of compensation by the complainant.”

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Opposite Parties filed First Appeal No.719/2010 with the State Commission. Similarly, not satisfied with the impugned order, the Complainant filed First Appeal No.441/2010 with the State Commission. The State Commission, vide common order dated 30.12.2014, allowed the Appeal filed by the Opposite Parties and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Complainant, with the observation that the Complainant can present his Complaint with the Railway Claims Tribunal.

6.       Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.12.2014, the Complainant has filed the instant Revision Petition.

7.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the State Commission gravely erred in dismissing the Appeal on the ground of jurisdiction while the District Forum had given cogent reasons for entertaining the Complaint on the ground of jurisdiction. The Petitioner suffered severe injuries and 100% loss of eye sight due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Railways. At the time of the incident, there was no TTE or Security Guard in the coach.

8.       Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the State Commission was justified in dismissing the Complaint as not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The cases seeking compensation for “untowards incident” are not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and are maintainable only with the Railway Claims Tribunal. In support of his arguments, Learned Counsel relied on Section 13 (1) read with Section 13, 14, 15 & 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

9.       As regards maintainability of the Consumer Compliant, we may devolve into the provisions of the Act. 13, 14, 15, & 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which reads as follows: -

"Section 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 Railway Act , ( a ) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for ( 1 ) compensation for loss , destruction , damages , deterioration or non - delivery of animals or good entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway ;

( ii ) compensation payable under Sec . 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 . [ ( 1 - A ) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise , on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of Sec. 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 Sec . 124 - A of the said Act or the Rules made there under . ] ( 2 ) The provision of the ( Railways Act , 1989 ) and the rules made there under shall , so far as may be , be applicable for inquiring into or determining any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act.

Section 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 of authority in relation to the matters referred to in ( sub - sections ( 1 ) and 1 - A ) of Sec 13.

Section 28.           Act to have overriding effect :- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything 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. "

It is also relevant to go through Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the same reads as follows: -

 “Act not in derogation of any other law .: The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. "

10.     This Commission in Western Railway V/s. Vinod Sharma by order dated 18.01.2017 passed in Appeal No.451 of 2015 held as under:-

"17. A plain reading of the provisions quoted above from the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 indicates that an elaborate mechanism has been laid down for providing compensation in the event of accidents, untoward incidents and allied matters, during the course of the operations, carried out by the Railways and for that purpose, the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims Tribunal have been laid down. It is to be determined, however, whether keeping in view the above provisions, the consumer fora shall also have the jurisdiction to deal with the matters, involving railway accidents. The issue has come up for consideration from time to time before the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Commission as well. It has been observed that the Consumer Protection Act is a special legislation, enacted to provide better protection for the interests of consumers in diverse fields. It is true that for specific sectors such as banking, finance, insurance, supply of electricity, entertainment etc., appropriate mechanism has been laid down in the respective statute, to provide suitable relief to the consumers as per requirements. However, the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation, specially enacted for the protection of the consumers and provides an additional remedy in the shape of Section '3' of the Consumer Protection Act, which clearly lays down that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. A harmonious construction of the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act and the Railways Act etc. shall indicate that the jurisdiction of the consumer fora cannot be barred, even if the provisions to provide compensation are laid down in the Railway legislation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in their order in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs, I (2004) CLT 20 (SC) and in Trans Mediterranean Airways vs. Universal Exports, IV 2011 CPJ 13(SC) observed that, " having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers, the better provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section '3' seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts, unless there is clear bar.

18. In State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-op. Society, I (2003) CPJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, that by reasons of the provisions of Section '3' of the Act, it is evident that remedies provided thereunder are not in derogation of those provided under other laws. The said Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts or other statutory authorities.

19. Based on the discussion above, it is held that the consumer fora do have the jurisdiction to deal with the present case and hence, the consumer complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by the consumer fora."

In State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-op. Society, I (2003) CPJ 1 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that by reasons of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, it is evident that remedies provided thereunder are not in derogation of those provided under other laws. The said Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts or other statutory authorities. On the basis of the above, we hold that the Consumer Fora have the jurisdiction to deal with the present case and hence the Consumer Complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is hereby set aside and the First Appeals 718/2010 & 441/2010 are restored to their original number with a direction to the State Commission to decide the same on merits.

11.     Parties to appear before the State Commission on 23.01.2023.