Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. State Co-Operative Marketing ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999ACJ973, AIR1998MP143, AIR 1998 MADHYA PRADESH 143, (1998) 1 MPLJ 259
Author: J.G. Chitre
Bench: J.G. Chitre
ORDER J.G. Chitre, J.
1. Shri Anwar Khan learned counsel for the appellants.
Heard, perused the certified copy of the impugned order as well as provisions of Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The appellants have filed the suit for damage averring that third party had consigned the commodity in question (fertilisers) to Railways for delivering it to appellants and in that context some Railway Receipts were recorded. Shri Anwar Khan argued that as such it happens to be disputed between third party, appellants and the railways, therefore, the Railway Claims Tribunal will not be having jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said dispute.
2. Section 13(1)(a) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act provides that Railway Claims Tribunal would be having jurisdiction to exercise all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day (8-11-89) by any Civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the Provisions of the Railways Act, relating to the responsibility of the Railway Administration 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.
Sub-section (b) provides that Railway Claims Tribunal would be having jurisdiction, power and authority as were exercisable immediately before abovementioned date by any Civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the Provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, in respect of the claim 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. In the present suit, it has been averred by the appellants that undisputedly the marchandise (fertilisers) were alleged to have been entrusted to Railway Administration for being carried by railway to the appellants, may be by third party. In the present suit, appellants claimed compensation for loss on account of non-delivery. Therefore, in such claims and suits for such claims, the Civil Court will not be having jurisdiction and the jurisdiction would be vested in Claims Tribunal established in view of Provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
3. Shri Anwar Khan prayed for some time for the appellants to appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal placing reliance on provisions of Section 24 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
4. It appears that the appellants were harbouring a wrong belief that Civil Court was having jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim preferred by them by the said suit. Keeping in view that misconception of law lingering in the minds of the appellants, I hereby uphold the order passed by trial Court and direct that the suit stands transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal for adjudication according to law.
5. The appellants to appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal initially on 2nd December, 1997 and thereafter, as directed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal. The trial Court to despatch the record to the said Tribunal, as early as possible.
Certified copy on usual charges.