S.A. Kader, President - This is a complaint under section 17 read with section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The complainant delivered two panels of books, one to Kharagpur and another to Bhubaneshwar on 4.2.1988 at the Central Station, Madras. These books were intended for exhibition at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, and Utkal University, Orissa. They were expected to reach the destination within 3 or 4 days. The parcel intended for delivery at Kharagpur was received there only on 27.2.1988 and could not therefore, be used for the exhibition.

They were, therefore, re-booked to Madras. The parcel intended for delivery at Bhubaneshwar was lost in transit. The complainant, therefore, claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.3,80,746.26 being the value of five bundles of books booked for delivery at Bhubaneshwar, and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for loss of profits, c mental agony and inconvenience and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- for delay in the delivery of the parcels booked for delivery at Kharagpur.

3. The opposite parties challenged the maintainability of the complaint by virtue of section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with section 13(1) of the said Act.

4. The points that are canvassed before us and which arises for determination are:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2. Whether claim is barred by time?

5. Point No.1: Two consignments of books have been booked at the Central Station, Madras on 4.2.1988, one to be delivered at Kharagpur and another at Bhubaneshwar. The consignment intended for Kharagpur was received there only on 27.2.1988, while the fate of the consignment intended for delivery at Bhubaneshwar is still unknown.

5. The contention put forward by the opposite parties arc that the claim is barred under section 15 read with section 13(1)of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act of 1987. Section 13(1) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act runs thus:

"The Claims Tribunal, shall exercised 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 Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act-

(a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter 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 there under; 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. Section 15 of the said Act reads thus:

"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".

This Commission has held in Divisional Manager. Madurai Division. Southern Railway and 2 others v.Mahalingam that section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act bars the jurisdiction of the quasi -judicial bodies constituted under the Consumer Protection Act in respect of the matters referred to in sub-section 1 of section 13 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Non-delivery of goods is one of the matter referred to in section 13(1)(a)(i) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the claim of the complainant in respect of the non-delivery of the consignment intended for delivery at Bhubaneshwar is clearly barred under section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the complaint is not maintainable in respect of that non-deli very.

6. But so far as the delay in delivery in respect of the consignment booked to Kharagpur is concerned, the complaint is maintainable as delay in delivery is not one of the matters mentioned in section 13(1) of the Act. Point No.1 is answered a