- (1.) THE complainant booked certain goods by Railway for delivery at the place called "tadali" in Maharastra State. The goods were not delivered at all by the opposite parties. Therefore, alleging deficiency, the complainant laid the complaint claiming the value of goods and further sums as compensation towards loss, suffering and damages.
(2.) THE Lower Forum by majority held that the complaint cannot ask for damages for the loss of goods, but, however, held that for the mental agony caused, the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,000/ - and that there is deficiency in service and, therefore, directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/ - with cost. The President of the lower Forum, however, disagreed and held that the complainant was not entitled to any relief.
(3.) BUT , in view of the decision of the majority, the opposite parties aggrieved by the same had preferred this appeal. It is needless to refer the numerous decisions on this point. But it has been held by the National Commission in M/s. Mukesh Enterprises V/s. The Chief Commercial Superintendent (Claims) and Another, and in Union of India V/s. M. Adailakam and in M/s. Thirumagal Mills Limited V/s. Southern Railway and Others, that Sec.15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read along with Sec.13 of the same enactment operates to exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts and authorities in respect of claims like the present one and though the Consumer Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1987 are not Courts, they are certainly authorities falling within the meaning of the said expression in Sec.15 of the said Act and, therefore, no claim can lie against the Railways under the Consumer Protection Act.;