HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 7485 of 2001 (M/S) Union of India …. Petitioner .. Versus State Consumer Protection Forum & others … Respondents Ms. Krishi Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. None for respondent no. 3. 23rd December, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard learned counsels for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Railway Head Quarters, Baroda House, New Delhi challenging the order of the District Consumers Protection Forum dated 17.9.1990 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner was directed to compensate respondent no. 3, the consumer and awarded an amount of Rs. 6,200/- to be paid to the consumer. Subsequently vide order dated 26.6.1995 the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum awarded a penalty compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to be given to respondent no. 3 by the petitioner. The case of the consumer (respondent no. 3) is that he had booked a consignment of two packages which were to be transported by the Indian Railways from Delhi to Dehradun which was not received by respondent no. 3 at Dehradun and consequently he moved a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the 2 District Consumer Protection Forum, Dehradun. The consumer forum vide order dated 17.9.1990 awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,200/- and consequently when this award was not complied with, in addition to the said award a penalty compensation of Rs. 3,000/- was also awarded to respondent no. 3. Therefore, in total the petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs. 9,200/- to the consumer i.e. respondent no. 3. Consequent to the said order the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the State Consumer Commission. At the relevant time the State Consumer Commission was situated at Lucknow in undivided State of Uttar Pradesh. A writ petition was subsequently filed by the petitioner at Lucknow Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. One of the allegations in the writ petition was that though the appeal has been filed against the order of the District Consumer Protection Forum before the State Commission, the State Commission i.e. the appellate authority has become almost a non-functional authority, as it is not holding its sittings and the next date fixed in his case is in April, 1996 (which is more than six months from the date he approached the Lucknow Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by means of present writ petition) and, therefore, the appeal is not an efficacious remedy. As such, the learned Single Judge had passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner. The said order is being quoted below : “Issue notice to opposite party No. 3 to show cause why the petition be not admitted. According to the petitioner, the opposite party No. 2 passed an order against the petitioner ex parte without jurisdiction since such matters in respect of which claim was made, are covered under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The appeal preferred against the order of District Consumer 3 Protection Forum, Dehradun is pending before opposite party No. 1 alongwith an application for stay of the execution of the order impugned but neither the appeal nor the application for interim relief is being taken up for the reason that presently for quite some time last, the State Consumer Protection Forum (appellate authority) has become almost non-functional. The appellate authority does not hold the sittings. The date now fixed is in the month of April, 1996. It is further informed that no proper place is being provided by the State Government for holding the sittings of the Forum i.e. the appellate authority. In the above circumstances, the petition is entertained and it is provided that the execution of the order passed by the District Consumer Protection Forum, Dehradun as well as the order imposing a penalty of Rs. 3000/- shall remain stayed until further orders or till the disposal of the application for interim relief before the State Consumer Protection Forum, U.P. Lucknow, whichever be the earlier, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits the decretal amount i.e. Rs. 6200/- with opposite party No. 2 within a period of six weeks. In case the above noted condition is not fulfilled within the time indicated, it will be open for the authorities and opposite party No. 3 to resume the proceedings for recovery.” This writ petition has since been transferred to this High Court after creation of State of Uttarakhand as the matter pertains to territory of the present State of Uttarakhand. Although no counter affidavit is presently on record and the Court being conscious of the fact that the matter is an old matter and it needs to be disposed of and all litigations must come to an end, this Court is presently disposing this writ petition by means of the following orders : Although one of the main grounds in the writ petition is the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Protection Forum, as according to the petitioner after the constitution 4 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the jurisdiction to decide the consumer complaint, which is as in the present writ petition, vests clearly with the Railway Claims Tribunal and not with the District Consumer Protection Forum, yet, in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Krishi Shukla has categorically stated before this Court that in compliance of the interim order dated 11.8.1995 an amount of Rs. 6,200/- has already been deposited with respondent no. 3 and the writ petition be disposed of on the basis of the earlier interim order of this Court dated dated 11.8.1995, nothing further is being said on the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Protection Forum. Since the amount of Rs. 6,200/- has already been given to respondent no. 3 by petitioner in compliance of the interim order of this Court as compensation, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 11.8.1995 itself and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner shall not be charged from the petitioner. It is clarified that this order is being passed without going into the question as to whether the District Consumer Protection Forum actually had a jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint at the relevant time in view of the constitution of Railway Claims Tribunal. Since, the limitation of three years which has been prescribed in Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has already been expired , therefore, respondent no. 3 if relegated to the Tribunal to start his dispute afresh would amount to not giving the petitioner any effective remedy at all. Therefore, for the reasons that the writ petition has earlier been entertained by this Court on the grounds that the State Consumer Commission at the relevant time was not functioning properly and that three years limitation of 5 the petitioner in any case has expired, writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 11.8.1995. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.12.2009 Avneet