Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ch. S.N. Mishra, President—The Chief Commercial Supdt., Eastern Railway, Calcutta has filed this revision application which arises out of the order dated 6.2.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 57/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Deoghar, whereby preliminary objection raised by the Railways has been rejected. The petitioner before us has filed an application questioning the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum in entertaining such dispute under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (in short Act) inasmuch as it has been con­tended that the claim raised by the complainant cannot be adjudi­cated in view of the provisions contained in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The other question raised before the Forum was that since the alleged transaction comes within the definition of commercial transaction, which will not come within the mischief of the Act.

2. The learned District Forum has discussed the second point and rejected the objection raised on behalf of the opposite party. The principal and, in fact, only submission of Mr. B. Chatterji, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Consumer Fora is not justified and, in fact, not allowed to deal with the subject matter of dispute in view of Section 13 read with Section 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act. In opposition, however, the learned Counsel Mr. P.P. Chatterji appearing on behalf or the opposite party submits that the Consumer Forum is well within its jurisdiction to entertain such claim and in support of his conten­tion he has referred to Section 2(d) of the Act including Clauses (g) and (o) thereof.

3. In order to appreciate the rival contention of the parties, Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is to be taken note of which reads thus :

“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 of a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act—

(a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Section VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for,

(i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway adminis­tration for carriage by railway;

(ii) compensation payable under Section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and

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

(2) The provisions of the Railways Act and the rule made thereun­der shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under the Tribunal Act.”

Admittedly the case of the complainant is that he has suffered a huge loss due to the non-delivery and/or short delivery of con­signment of 93 and 49 kgs. of ‘Khowa’ booked under Railway Re­ceipts on 1.3.1998 and 10.2.1999 respectively.

4. That apart, Section 15 of the Act completely oversteps the jurisdiction of all other Civil Courts including Tribunal to entertain such claim which is covered under the Claims Tribunal Act. Section 15 of the Tribunal Act reads thus :

“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.”

Section 3 of the Act envisages ”Act not in derogation of any other law—The provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.” No doubt, the provision of the Act is in addi­tion to and not in derogation of any law in force. If the Consu­mer Fora is allowed to adjudicate such dispute which will