S.K.M. Lodha, President –– The complainants have filed this complaint against Superintendent, Central Railway, Railway Station, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar (Maharashtra) and five others. Opposite party No. 6 is Union of India through Secretary, Railway Ministry, Govt, of India, New Delhi, compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,93,820/- with 18% interest p.a. has been claimed, for the reasons mentioned in para 4 of the complaint. Goods mentioned in para 3(ka) and (kha) were sent by the complainants by the Railway. The goods did not reach for many days. On account of the delay on the part of the opposite parties, the goods consigned were spoiled. As a result of that the price instead of Rs. 125/- per quintal was reduced to Rs. 120/- per quintal. On behalf of the opposite party No. 6, Union of India, version of the case was filed. A preliminary objection was taken that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim as per provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 (“the Act of 1987” herein). The Preamble of the Act of 1987 is as follows :

“An Act to provide for the establishment of a Railway Claims Tribunal for inquiring into and determining claims against a railway administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to it to be carried by railway or for the refund of fares or freight or for compensation for death or injuries to passengers occurring as a result of railway accidents and for matters connected therewith or incidental therein.”

Sec. 13(1) material for our purpose, reads as under :

“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 Claim Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act.

(a). (i). .. ..

(ii) .. ..

(b). in respect of the claims for refund 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.”

Sec. 15 of the above Act of 1987 deals with Bar of Jurisdiction. It is as follows :

“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 or authority in relation to the matters referred to in sub-Section (1) of Section 13.”

2. The claim made by the complainant against the opposite parties is covered by S. 13(1) of the Act of 1987. According to S. 15 of the Act of 1987 jurisdiction of any Court or other authority has been barred in respect of the matters referred to in sub-section (1) of Sec. 13 of the Act of 1987. The complaint was filed on 3.4.90 when the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 had already come into force and Claims Tribunal has been established. Learned Counsel for the complainant invited our attention to S. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides that the provisions of the Act of 1986 arc in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of Sec. 3 of the Act are of no help to the complainant. As S. 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 completely bars the jurisdiction of the Court or the authority in relation to the matters referred to in sub-Sec. (1) of S. 13 of the Act of 1987. The matter of the complaint is covered by sub-sec. (1) of S. 13 of the Act of 1987. The redressal forums including the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and hear the complaints relating to the matters enumerated in Sub-sec. (1) of S. 13 of the Act of 1987. The prdiminary objection raised on behalf of opposite-party no. 6 has to be accepted and it is held that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and hear the complaint.

The complaint is accordingly rejected on this limited ground. It is, however, made clear that this order will not preju