# Petition No.323 of 1991 M/s B.M. Electric Press, Aligarh v. Union

- **Citation:** (1999) 3 ILRA 40
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/petition-no-323-of-1991-m-s-b-m-electric-press-aligarh-v-union-39402
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

40 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,2
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '66,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( '66,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

8QLRQ RI ,QGLD DQRWKHU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
0V % 0 (OHFWULF SUHVV DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL /DOML 6LQKD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV

5DLOZD\ FODLP WULEXQDO DFW VHF E VHFWLRQ MXULVGLFWLRQDO
EDU DSSRLQWHG GD\¶ PHDQV WKH GDWH ZKHQ WKH WULEXQDO ZDV
HVWDEOLVKHG WKH FRXUW RU WKH DXWKRULWLHV DUH QRW HQWLWOHG WR H[HUFLVH
DQ\ MXULVGLFWLRQ RU SRZHU UHJDUGLQJ WKH FODLP RI FRPSHQVDWLRQ IRU
ORVV GHVWUXFWLRQ GDPDJH GHWHULUFDWLRQ QRQ GHOLYHU\ RI JRRGV RU
DQLPDO HQWUXVWHG WR UDLOZD\ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ FRPSODLQW ILOHG XQGHU
VHFWLRQ RI WKH FRQVXPHU SURWHFWLRQ DFW KHOG EDUUHG E\ VHFWLRQ
RI WKH WULEXQDO $FW
SDUD
7KXV LQ 1RYHPEHU ZKHQ WKH UHVSRQGHQW QR KDG ILOHG WKH
FRPSODLQW XQGHU VHFWLRQ RI WKH FRQVXPHU SURWHFWLRQ DFW WKH
GLVWULFW FRQVXPHU UHGUHVVDO IRUXP $OLJDUK WKH UHVSRQGHQW QR
KDG QR MXULVGLFWLRQ WR HQWHUWDLQ WKH VDLG FRPSODLQW /LNHZLVH RQ WK
-XQH WKH IRUXP GLG QRW KDYH MXULVGLFWLRQ WR SDVV WKH
LPSXJQHG RUGHU (QWLUH SURFHHGLQJV EHIRUH WKH UHVSRQGHQW QR
ZHUH WR WDOO\ ZLWKRXW MXULVGLFWLRQ UHQGHULQJ WKH LPSXJQHG RUGHU
YRLG

By the Court

1. Head Shri Lal Ji Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. Despite being duly served, the respondents have not put
in appearance to contest the petition

2. The order dated 8th June, 1992 passed by the District
Consumer Redressal Forum, Aligarh, the respondent No.2,
established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter
called the Consumer Protection Act, purporting to allow the Claim
Petition No.323 of 1991 M/s B.M. Electric Press, Aligarh Vs. Union
1999
------
July, 30
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
41
of India and another, is under challenge in this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India

3. Learned counsel of the petitioners contends that the
impugned order is totally without jurisdiction in view of the
provisions of Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987,
hereafter called the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

4. On 30th May, 1989, M/s Hindustan paper Board
Corporation Ltd. booked with Northern Railway 383 bundles of
papers from Panchgram Railway Station to Aligarh in favour of the
respondent no.1 During the course of delivery of the goods it was
discovered that that one bundle of papers was short and 20 bundles
were damaged. This let the respondent no.1 file before the
respondent no.2 the Claim Petition No.323 of 1991, under section 12
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter to as the Consumer
Protection Act, in November, 1991, for loss and damages of the
goods in question.

5. Upholding the claim of the respondent no.1. the respondent
no.2 passed the impugned order dated 8th June 1992 directing the
petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.7,849.50 Paise together with 12%
interest with effect from June 1989,and Rs.100/ by way of costs.

6. Section 15 of the Railway claims Tribunal Act, provides
that 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) and (1-A ) of
section 13 of the Act.

7. The matters referred to in sub section (1) of section 13 of
the Act, inter alia cover the compensation for loss, destruction,
damage, deterioration or non delivery of animals or goods entrusted
to a railway administration for carriage by railway.

8. Thus, on and form the appointed day, no Court or other
authority had or is entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or
authority in relation to the claim for compensation for loss
destruction, damage, deterioration non delivery of animals or goods
entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway.

9. The 'appointed day' has been defined in sub section (b)of
section 2 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act to mean the date with
1999
------
U.O.I. &
another
 Vs.
M/s B.M.
Electric Press.
& another
------
D.S. Sinha, J.
Onkareshwar
Bhatt, J.
42 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
effect from which the Claims Tribunal is established under Section 3
of the Act which ordains that the Central Government shall by
notification, establish a Claims Tribunal to be know as the Railway
Claims Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction powers, and authority
conferred on it by or under the Act.

10. In exercise of powers conferred under section 3 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the Central Government issued a
notification dated 5th October 1989, published in Gazette of India
Extra part II section 3 (ii), dated 5th October 1989, P.2, purporting to
establish Railway Claims Tribunal with effect form the 8th day of
November 1989and declaring the said to be a 'appointed day' within
the meaning of Clause (b) of section 2 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act.

11. In view of the establishment of the Railway Claims
Tribunal with effect from 8th November 1989, and declaration of
that date to be the 'appointed day, for the purpose of section 15 of
the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 8th November, 1989 is the
'appointed day', and from that date jurisdiction of every court or
other authority in relation to the matters covered in sub section (1)
and (1-A)of section 13 of the Act stands clearly excluded.

12. Thus, in November 1991, when the respondent no.1 had
filed the complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection
Act, the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Aligarh the
respondent No 2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint
likewise, on 8th June, 1992, the Forum did not have jurisdiction to
pass the impugned order. Entire proceedings before the respondent
no.2 were totally without jurisdiction, rendering the impugned order
void.

13. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned order dated 8th June 1992 , a photocopy whereof is
Anexxure 2 to the petition is quashed. There is no order as to costs.

Petition Allowed.
1999
------
U.O.I. &
another
 Vs.
M/s B.M.
Electric Press.
& another
------
D.S. Sinha, J.
Onkareshwar
Bhatt, J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
43
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 906$+$,-
7+( +21·%/( 906$+$,-

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6RKDQ /DO 8PUDZR
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6DFKLY 0DKDSUDEDQGKDN )DWHKSXU 'LVWULFW
&RRSHUDWLYH %DQN /WG DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHUV
6KUL %36ULYDVWDYD
6KUL 5DM .XPDU
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL +50LVKUD
6UL $.XPDU

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH /HJDO SUHVXPSWLRQ VKRZ FDXVH
QRWLFH VHQG WKRXJK 5HJLVWHUHG SRVW GHQLRO
E\ WKH GHOHQTXHQW
HPSOR\HH +LJK &RXUW GHFOLQHG WR LQWHUIHUH DV WKHUH VKDOO EH HYHU\
SUHVXPSWLRQ RI VHUYLFH XQOHVV RWKHUZLVH ,V SURYHG

 6HF (-6
 6HF
7KH &RQWHQWLRQ RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU WKDW VKRZ FDXVH QRWLFH ZDV QRW
VHUYHG XSRQ KLP LV QRW DFFHSWDEOH LQ YLHZ RI KH IDFW WKDW WKH VKRZ
FDXVH QRWLFH ZDV VHQW E\ WKH UHJLVWHUHG SRVW WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU
0RUHRYHU QR IRXQGDWLRQ KDV EHHQ ODLG LQ WKH ZULW SHWLWLRQ WKDW WKH
VKRZ FDXVH QRWLFH
QRW VHUYHG
XSRQ KLP $ OHWWHU VHQW E\
UHJLVWHUHG SRVW LV SUHVXPHG WR EH VHUYHG XQOHVV UHEXWWHG 6LQFH WKH
SHWLWLRQHU KDV QRW EHHQ DEOH WR UHEXW LW WKHUH LV QR LQILUPLW\ RU
LOOHJDOLW\ LQ WKH LPSXJQHG RUGHU RI UHPRYDO 7KH RUGHU SDVVHG E\
UHVSRQGHQWV LV OLDEOH WR EH PDLQWDLQHG >3DUD @

By the Court

1. The petitioner was appointed as Gurad in 1963 in District
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandpur district Fatehpur. He worked for
some time as cashier/clerk. While working as cashier he was issued
a charge sheet for embezzlement of funds. In the departmental
disciplinary proceedings he was found guilty of the charges framed
against him. The punishing authority issued show cause notice to the
petitioner by registered post on 18/21-5-87 as to why the petitioner
1999
------
July, 23