UNION OF INDIA Vs. STATE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Govind Saran learned Counsel for Petitioner and Sri J.J. Munir learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, M/s Laxmi Sales, Sarai Nawab, Aligarh. These writ petitions arise out of proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 3 in the form of Complaint No. 144 and Complaint No. 145, both of 1991 filed before District Forum (Aligarh) constituted under Section 9(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of Respondent No. 3 was that the goods booked by him had not reached the correct, indicated destination and the consignments reached at the wrong place. The District Forum, Aligarh through order dated 14.8.1991 held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims as claimant was not consumer. Against the said orders, appeals were filed by Respondent No. 3 being Appeal No. 653/SC of 1991 and Appeal No. 654/SC of 1991 before State Commission U.P. Lucknow constituted under Section 9(b) of the Act. Both the appeals were allowed on 4.4.1992 and it was held that it was a case of deficiency in service, hence claims were quite maintainable. As the Consumer Forum, Aligarh had not decided the matter on merit, hence matter was remanded to it to decide the claims on merit. Orders dated 4.4.1992 have been challenged through these writ petitions.

(2.) The only point argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that in view of Sections 13 and 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, no other Court except the Claims Tribunal created thereunder has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim for loss or misplacement of consignment, hence forums constituted under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no jurisdiction to entertain such claims. This point was raised before the District Forum and State Commission.

(3.) Sections 13 and 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 are quoted below: