V K UPADHYAY Vs. GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in Complaint No. DE/BM/156/93 on the file of the District Forum, Bombay is the revision petitioner. He approached the District Forum with a claim for compensation on the allegation that the two second class three tier berths which he had reserved in Coach S-6 for journey from Jabalpur to Bombay on 23-11-1992 were found to have been already allotted to other passengers at Allahabad with the result that he had to travel upto Bombay sitting on the floor and he was subjected to great inconvenience and hardship.

(2.) The District Forum went into the evidence in the case and upheld the plea of the complainant that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000.00 to the complainant in addition to Rs. 500.00 by way of costs. The railway fare paid by the complainant was also directed to be refunded to him.

(3.) On appeal filed by the General Manager, Central Railway before the State Commission, Maharashtra, at Bombay, the State Commission by a summary order held "the learned District Forum has wrongly granted the claim when it was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Railway in view of sections 15 and 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Therefore, the Order of the District Forum is quashed and set aside". It would have been much more appropriate in our opinion if the State Commission had taken the trouble to consider the nature of the allegations made in the complaint and discussed in the light thereof the question as to whether the dispute was such as would fall within the purview of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. We have gone through the records and examined the facts of the case and we have also heard the appellant in person. In our opinion, the dispute raised in the complaint does not at all fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act because the grievance put forward by the complainant is not in respect of any of the matters respecting which such jurisdiction has been conferred by the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 on the Claims Tribunal. In the circumstances, the view taken by the State Commission that the petition was not maintainable before the District Forum was incorrect and unsustainable in law. The order of the State Commission is accordingly set aside.