Union Of India (Uoi) vs Q.S. Shipchandler And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 382 Bom

JUDGMENT

Pratibha Upasani, J.

1. This "Writ Petition is filed by the Union of India through its Chief Commercial Superintendent Central Railways, having their Office at Bombay V.T., Bombay, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 25th September, 1990 passed by the Consumers Disputes Redressel Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission' for the sake of brevity), Maharashtra State, New Bombay in Complaint No. 10/1990. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the said Commission ordered the Central Railway to pay Rs. 2,372/- to the Complainant as cost of the complaint, within thirty days and also directed the Central Railway to recover from passengers the actual fair fixed by the Central Government under section 30(1) of the Railways Act and published for A/C Chair Car bogies attached to Indrayani Express and Deccan Express plying between Bombay-Pune till the fare is revised by the Central Government.

2. I have heard Mr. Samant for petitioners. Respondent No. 1, who was the original complainant, is not present. As such, he had not claimed any compensation for himself on account of deficiency in service. The complaint was filed in the nature of public interest. His complaint in nutshell was as follows :--

The Central Railway has been attaching A.C. Chair Car bogies with Indrayani Express and Deccan Express plying between Bombay and Pune, but the passengers were being charged 1st Class fare. The contention of the complainant Mr. Q.S. Shipchandler was that for similar bogies attached to the other trains by the Western Railway, the fares were charged, meant for A.C. Chair Car, as per the Schedule published by the Railway Administration, whereas, for identical bogies (A.C. Chair Car), the Central Railway was charging 1st Class fare, which was higher than the A.C. Chair Car.

3. This complaint came to be filed in the name of public interest before the Commission, who after hearing both the sides, passed the impugned order. Having gone through the said Judgment, and having heard Mr. Samant for petitioner, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Samant that a complaint of this type ought to have been filed before the Railway Rates Tribunal, as there is a bar of jurisdiction as per the provisions of Section 43 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. Mr. Samant for petitioner has further submitted that the impugned Judgment is dated 25th September, 1990 and after that, the fares were revised thrice and in view of this, the Judgment has become ineffective. He is also relying upon the order dated 5th July, 2000 passed by this Court (Coram : B. P. Singh, C.J. and N.J. Pandya, J.) in Writ Petition No. 954 of 2000 which was also filed in the nature of public interest, incorporating a similar grievance and which was disposed of by observing that this type of grievances cannot be entertained in this Court, and the petitioners if so advised, may make the representation before appropriate authority for consideration of their demand. With these observations, the said Writ Petition was disposed of.

4. In the present petition also, as already pointed out, the proper forum was the Railway Rates Tribunal and the application should not have been filed before the Commission, as there was nothing like in the nature of "deficiency in

service". I am therefore in agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Samant on this point. In view of this, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set-aside and the Writ Petition will have to be allowed. Hence, the following order :

Writ Petition made absolute in terms of prayer clause 16(a)(i).

The order of the Consumers Disputes Redressel Commission, Maharashtra State, New Bombay dated 25th September, 1990 passed in Complaint No. 10 of 1990 is hereby quashed and set-aside.

Petition disposed of accordingly.