IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Additional alternative remedy - It is well-settled that the additional alternative remedy provided to the ‘consumer’ vide section 3 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in order to seek remedy for the loss and injury suffered due to ‘deficiency’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ as defined under the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
(2) Doctrine of Election - the ‘doctrine of election’ or in simpler words the right of the ‘consumer’ to elect the forum to seek remedy against the wrong done is of material significance. It concomitantly goes without saying that the general principle obtains that the same remedy for the same wrong cannot be sought all over again in parallels or subsequently in another forum of concurrent jurisdiction.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 27.06.2014 of the State Commission in appeal no. 264 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 31.01.2007 of the District Commission in complaint no. 26 of 2005.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the railways (the petitioner herein) and the learned counsel for the complainant (the respondent no. 1 herein). No one appears for the consignee (the respondent no. 2 herein). We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 31.01.2007 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 27.06.2014 of the State Commission and the petition.

3. The petition has been filed with reported delay of 100 days. Learned counsel for the railways submits that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay, and requests that the delay in filing the petition be condoned. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he has no objection to the delay being condoned, and requests that the petition may be decided on merit.

In the interest of justice, considering the submissions of the learned counsel, to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the petition is condoned.

4. Briefly, as is garnered from the appraisals made by the two fora below, proved facts of the case are that the complainant was earning his livelihood by means of self-employment by selling books. He sent back unsold books through the railways’ parcel service to the consignee i.e. the publisher on 09.06.2003 and paid the consideration therefor in full. The value of the consignment was Rs. 54,998/-. But the consignment was not delivered to the consignee by the railways. He pursued the matter in the department time and again but his grievance was not redressed. He then made a claim with the railways authorities. He received a belated response vide letter dated 27.10.2004 from the railways intimating him that his claim has been rejected as being time-barred since the consignment was booked on 09.06.2003 and the claim was registered on 19.08.2004 whereas under Section 106 of The Railway Act, 1989 the claim was to be filed within six months from the date of entrustment of the goods. This caused him to prefer a complaint with the District Commission on 08.04.2005, which was well within the two-year limitation period stipulated under section 24A of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 31.01.2007 allowed the complaint on contest. It ordered the railways to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.54,998/- i.e. the value of the consignment with interest at the rate of 15% per annum along with Rs. 500/- towards compensation.

The State Commission vide its Order dated 27.06.2014 dismissed the appeal filed by the railways.

5. The point of fact involved in this case is whether the consignment was entrusted by the complainant with the railways but was not delivered to the consignee by it. The same has been conclusively established by the District Commission and the State Commission in their respective independent appraisals, and is also not being agitated on behalf of the railways in the arguments today.

6. The point of law involved is whether the complaint before the District Commission was maintainable. Objections re maintainability were taken by the railways before the District Commission and also before the State Commission. Both the fora dismissed the objections. The same are however being pressed on behalf of the railways in the arguments today.

7. Learned counsel for the railways argues that section 13 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 confers upon the claims tribunals established thereunder the jurisdiction relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations in respect of loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods and that section 15 of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of any other co