Today is fixed for order. Heard both the parties on the issue of jurisdiction.

Opp party has filed petition raising on objection on 13.11.13 stating that complainant being not a “consumer” us 2(d) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not entitled to claim any relief against the opp parties by involving the jurisdiction of the forum. Hence, the purported claims of the complainant against the opp.parties are contrary to the provisions of law. Under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, Railway Claims Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of claiming compensation from Railway Administration. Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1986 excludes the jurisdiction of other courts. Secondly, consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a general Act dealing with the question of extending protection to consumers in general, Whereas railway claims tribunal act is a legislation to deal with the specific provisions concerning the Railway claims arising under chapter III of the said Act. Therefore, general law must yeild to be special law.

Opp party further stated that complainant ought to have approached before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati under the Previsions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 and section 15 of the Railway claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such claim of compensation under clause (b) of sub-section 2 of section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the present complaint petition is liable to be dismissed in limine on the above ground of want of jurisdiction within the meaning of section 13(1)(b) and 15 of

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the Civil procedure code, 1908 besides the provisions of the consumer protection act, 1986.

It is submitted by the opp parties that they relied on the decision of the Apex Court in similar matter in case of Chairman, Tiruvalluvar Transport corporation Vs. Consumer Protection counsel reported in AIR 1998 SC 1384. In this case, the Apex Court held that the Consumer Protection Act is general law and should yeld to Motor vehicles Act which is a special law. While holding so, the the Apex Court approved the view taken by the National Commission in the case of UOI  Vs. M. Adai Kalam ( 1993 (2) CPR 94.

In reply of written objection complainant filed a counter objection.

In his objection complainant stated that complaint petition has a valid cause of action and this forum has ample power and jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint against the Indian Railways as has been encapsulated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The statement that the failure of the complainant was on account of the intentional default or motivated design and /or calculated lapses on his part is strongly and categorically denied and the complainant would like to hereby state that the instant case is purely a case of deficiency in service of the Indian Railways for which he is made to suffer a lot. The complainant further stated that he squarely falls within the ambit of the definition  of consumer as has been defined in section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant had hired the services of the respondents for some amount of consideration which is protected by the provisions enumerated in the consumer protection Act, 1986. The consumer protection act gives ample power and jurisdiction upon this forum to Scanned with C adjudicate upon the complaint filed by the complainant. The Forums under  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint despite the fact that other Forums/courts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this provisions of the 1986 Act apply in addition to the other provisions available under enactments. The remedies that are available to an aggrieved party under the 1986 Act are wider.

In this connection we would like to refer one decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Union of India, through General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras & another petitioner - vs M.Adaikalam- Respondent- Revision Petition no. 125 of 1992 Decided on 15.4.1993 Consumer Protection Act,1986-section 2 & 14- Railway Claims Tribunal Act- Coaching Tariff- Rule 121- A parcel of Church bell delivered after one year of its booking- Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to entertain complaints on account of deficiency in service arising from loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery entrusted to Railway Administration for carriage-order of the State Commission awarding compensation is liable to be set-aside.

This Forum has looked into decision of 1995 (Cp)2) GLT 17 State National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (Before S.N.Phukan, President, A.C.Bora, Member) Mr. Joseph Sebastian @ S. Joseph- Petitioner -vs- The Union of India and others-opp party C.P. Case 62 of 1992 Decided on : September 4,1993 Railway claims Tribunal Act, 1987-S. 13 (1) (a)91) claims Tribunal shall exercise all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable earlier by any civil court or a claims commissioner appointed under the Railways Act. including compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals and goods extrusted to a railway

Administration S.15-provides that no court or other authority shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in i 0 2.22 e relation to the matters in section 13(1) consumer protection Act,1986- S. CA 12 2. 3 does not give jurisdiction to Consumer Commission in view of the complete bar or jurisdiction of any court or any authority imposed by section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal -para 8.

The learned advocate for the opp parties has drawn our attention to the reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Reported in A.I.R. 1995 sec.1384 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court accepted the decision of National Commission reported in 1993 (2)CPR 94. In that decision the National Commission held inter-alia that consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints on account of deficiency in service arising from loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods entrusted to Rly. Administration for carriage. The jurisdiction is now exclusively vested in Rly.claims Tribunal.

It is pertinent to mention herein that the proper/appropriate forum for , adjudication of the claims of the complainant is the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati and not before the Consumer Forum as provided under - section 15 of the Railway Claims tribunal Act, 1987 and hence, the complainant may approach the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati for redressal of his grievance .

Considering facts of this case and decision mentioned above, we are on the opinion that this Forum has no jurisdiction to proceed with this  complaint. Thus the issue is decided in favour of the opp. parties and against   the   complaint. In the result, the   complainant   is directed  to approach in the   appropriate   authority   to redress   his grievance.