UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARISH CHANDRAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seek quashment of the orders dtd. 9/10/2015 and 21/5/2012 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 24/1/2011, father of respondent No.l while alighting from the train, fell down and was killed. The respondents thereupon sent a notice on 12/9/2011 to the petitioner and thereafter filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000.00 for the death of late Bheemanagouda. The District Commission by an order dtd. 21/4/2012 inter alia held that Sec. 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 dtd. 9/10/2015 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.4.00 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.