A non-government railway working under an agreement with the Government of India is included within the definition of 'railway administration' under Section 2(32) of the Railways Act, 1989, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

1. - All these appeals filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal Act'), arise out of the common order dated 18.7.01 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed all the claim petitions filed by the appellant-claimant, allowing the preliminary objections raised by the respondent No. 3 with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2. The question that falls for consideration before this court is, whether the respondent No. 3-Company could be said to be the 'Railway Administration"within the meaning of Section 2(32) of the Railways Act, so as to cover its responsibility as the carrier under the provisions contained in the said Act, and to enable the Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority under Section 13 of the Tribunal Act?

3. The short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the appellant-company had filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal alleging that the consignments of cement were booked by it with the respondent No. 3 for being carried from Morak District, Kota falling within the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 to Ghaziabad, falling within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2. According to the appellant, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were the Government Railways, however the respondent No. 3 was a non-Government Railway, who supplied the containers/wagons to the appellant-company to carry the goods. As per the case of the appellant, due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the railway administration, the consignments of the cement bags WERE not covered with Tarpaulin, and the said cement bags got damaged due to the rains and storms in the premises of the respondents. The appellant, therefore, had filed separate claim petitions before the Tribunal for separate consignments claiming compensation from the respondents. The respondent No. 3 in the said claim petitions raised preliminary objection as regards the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate the liability against the respondent No. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also raised the preliminary objection to the effect that the claim petitions were not maintainable against them in absence of any privity of contract between the parties. The Tribunal without entering into the merits of the claim petitions filed by the appellant dismissed the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and allowed the preliminary objections raised by the respondents vide the impugned order.

4. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Deepak Goyal for the appellant that the respondent No. 3 was working under the agreement dated 31.7.1995 entered into between the respondent No. 3 and the President of India, and that it was supplying the containers and wagons to the appellant to carry the consignments, by issuing inland way-bills subject to the conditions and liability as specified in the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act). According to Mr. Goyal, the respondent NO.3 was included in the definition of the "Railway Administration" contained in Section 2(32) of the said Act and the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims against all the respondents under Section 13 of the Tribunal Act. He also submitted that all the Directors of the respondent No. 3 were the Members of the Railway Board as per the Memorandum of Association, and the respondent No. 3 could not escape from its liability under the said Act. It was also submitted by him that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the provisions contained in the said Act and in the Tribunal Act and wrongly dismissed the claim petitions of the appellants.

5. However, the learned counsel Mr. Alok Garg for the respondent No. 3 submitted that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims qua the railway administration only as contemplated in Section 13 of the Tribunal Act