Delhi

East Delhi

CC/117/2018

LALITA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHIEF COMMERCIAL SUPT. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110092

 

C.C. NO. 117/2018

 

	Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Sh. Pradeep R/o H. No. 77, Street No. 03, Khera Kalan, Delhi-110082. Also at Near Sabji Mandi Azadpur Delhi-110033.	….Complainant
Versus
	Chief Commercial Superintendent             Anand Vihar Delhi(Railways)    The Station Master, Anand Vihar, Delhi   Indian Railways,            The Chairman,            Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.	.…OP1     .…OP2        .…OP3

 

                       

Date of Institution: 09.04.2018

Order Reserved on: 31.01.2023

 Order Passed on: 03.02.2023

                       

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms.Rashmi Bansal(Member)

 

 

Order by : Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

 

            The Complainant has filed complaint against OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part in not delivering 20.40 Quintal of ‘Suthani’ (a kind of fruit) which she had booked on 17/10/2017 through her agent/representative from Khagadiya Railway Station, Bihar to Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi.

The Complainant in her complaint has contended that on 17/10/2017 she, through her agent/representative Sh. Raj Kumar Singh R/o Rampur Asouli Sivani, Khagadiya, Bihar, had booked 20.40 Quintal ‘Suthani’ from Railway Station Khagadiya Junction and receipt no. 405882 was issued for Rs. 3620.10/- as charges by the Railway Authority at Khagadiya Station. The same was loaded in Purvyia Express Train No. 15279 and it was to be unloaded and delivered to the Complainant on 18/10/2017 at Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi upon arrival of the Train.

‘Suthani’ is a kind of fruit which is perishable after some time and the same was to be sold by the Complainant during ‘Chhath festival’ at Delhi and it is not cultivated in NCR Region and was brought from Bihar where it is cultivated by farmers.

            The said ‘Suthani fruit’ is sold on a very high rate during the Chhath festival and after it is not generally sold or purchased and has no, market value. The Complainant has stated that she had spent Rs. 3 Lakh approximately for purchasing ‘Suthani’ from cultivators from their field, then booked it in the Train for Delhi. On 17/10/2017 the Train Purvyia Express Train started at 1.00 p.m. from Khagadiya Junction and the said agent/representative of the Complainant also boarded the same Train and it reached Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi. The agent/representative of the Complainant requested to unload the parcel but it was not done and the Train returned to Bihar. The Complainant agent also returned in the same train to Khagadiya, Bihar and in Bihar also parcel was not opened and Train again returned to Anand Vihar Railway Station Delhi and the agent again accompanied in the train. Upon reaching Anand Vihar Railway Station he again asked to open the Parcel coach of the Train and deliver the goods but it was not done and the Train again returned to Khagadiya, Bihar and agent also came back to Khagadiya, Bihar and parcel was still not delivered.

            The Complainant lodged formal complaint at Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi and demanded compensation/damages of Rs. 3 Lakh as 26-27 October 2017 ‘Chhath festival’ was celebrated in Delhi and the goods in question were of no utility in the market thereafter. The Complainant in her prayer has sought compensation of Rs. 4 Lakh which includes loss of cost of goods, mental torture, agony and loss of transportation, profit in selling the commodity in market.

            OP has filed their reply through Divisional Commercial Manager/SS, Northern Railway DRM’s Office, New Delhi wherein they have stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as it is not a consumer dispute. According to the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, Section 13(1),”The Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any Civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of Railway Act-

1. Relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for-

1.  Compensation for loss, destruction, damages, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or good entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway;
2. Compensation payable under Sec. 82-A of the Railways Act or the rules made there under ‘and

2. In respect of the claims 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.”

 

OP has stated that the said dispute falls under the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

The OP has further stated that there is no official having designation as Chief Commercial Superintendent, Anand Vihar Railway Station hence the complaint needs to be dismissed for impleading wrong party and also that Suthani  (a type of fruit) which was loaded was for commercial purpose as per the admission of the complainant in her plaint. As per the complaint the alleged cause of action arose at Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi which is not having Administrative Office of Railway and hence relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Case, the OP has stated that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The OP has further stated that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands as she was offered to take Suthani on 04/11/2017 but she refused to take delivery. She had booked ‘Suthani’ for selling purpose in Delhi at ‘Owner’s risk’. There was restriction of loading/unloading of parcel at New Delhi, Sarai Rohila Delhi Main including Anand Vihar Railway Station to facilitate heavy rush of railway passengers in view of the Deepawali & Chhath Pooja for maximum safety of railway passengers. There was restriction on parcel booking/loading/unloading from 18/10/2017 to 25/10/2017 at Anand Vihar Railway Station on account of the above said festivals.

            The Complainant has filed Rejoinder wherein she has denied the contention raised by the OP in their written statement and has reiterated her complaint. She has also stated that if Railway had imposed restriction of loading/unloading of parcels at Anand Vihar Railway Station due to rush of passengers in view of Deepawali and Chhath Pooja then it should have informed its official not to book parcel during those days when restriction was there which amount to deficiency in service. Besides this parcel could have been unloaded at distance ear-marked place where passengers do not go to board the Train and could have been kept in godown and be delivered to the complainant. Even the agent/representative of the complainant had requested the Railway Authority that if the consignment is not delivered at Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi then they should handover the same to him in Khagadiya in Bihar from where it was loaded so that it could have been utilized but they refused to do so. The OP has not placed on record any such order of restriction imposed in support of their stand. It is not the case that the complainant was going to use the goods in question for commercial purpose as it was for her earning livelihood by selling the fruit in question.

The complainant has filed in her evidence by affidavit wherein she has exhibited documents Parcel Way Bill as CW1/1 and copy of complaint made to Railway as CW1/2 and has also filed evidence by way of affidavit of agent/representative Sh. Raj Kumar Singh wherein the documents/copies of Railway Ticket for journey from Khagadiya Station to Anand Vihar Railway Station and from Anand Vihar Railway Station to Khagadiya Station again and again are enclosed as “Ex.CW-21/1”(colly).

            OP has filed their evidence by way of affidavit.

            This Commission has heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both sides and has perused the documents on record.

The case of complainant is that she had booked ‘Suthani’(a kind of fruit) weighing 20.40 quintal at Khagadiya Railway Station, Bihar through her agent/representative Sh. Raj Kumar Singh which exclusively was to be used during the ‘Chhath Pooja’ and was issued Receipt No. 405882 for Rs. 3620.10/- by Railways at Khagadiya, Bihar.  The same was loaded in Purvyia Express Train No. 15279 on 17/10/2017 and was to be unloaded and delivered to the complainant on 18/10/2017 at Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi. This fruit ‘Suthani’ is perishable item and was for specific purpose for selling in the market during ‘Chhath festival’ in Delhi however though the Train Purvyia Express reached Delhi at Anand Vihar Railway Station but said goods were not unloaded despite request made to the Railway Authorities and were returned back to Khagadiya Railway Station Bihar and this continued for two more times and according to the reply of the OP the same was offered to be delivered to the complainant on 04/11/2017 however by the time Chhath Pooja was over and said fruit ‘Suthani’ was of no use and got perished also and therefore complainant refused to take delivery.

            The OP has taken its defence that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as it was falling under the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal. This stand of the OP is not tenable as the case before this Commission is on account of the deficiency in service under Consumer Protection Act (CPA) on the part of the OP alleged by the complainant and therefore the Commission has jurisdiction to examine the complaint of the complainant under CPA. Further, the entire cause of action has arisen under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

            It is also stated by the OP that the complainant had booked these articles for commercial purpose which is commercial activity hence not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. However, this contention of the OP is also not tenable as the question before the Commission is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP is not completing their obligation despite of receiving consideration amount of Rs.3620.10/- by way of Parcel Booking Receipt No. 405882 at Khagadiya Railway Station, Bihar to transporting the goods booked to Delhi. The OP has to deliver the goods & there is deficiency in delivering the goods. What the complainant would do, is not the concern of OP. The other contention of the OP is there is no post of Chief Commercial Superintendent at Anand Vihar Railway Station and therefore this complaint is not maintainable on account of the impleading wrong parties.  This contention of the OP is highly technical and is also not well found as the complainant has also made Chairman Railway Board, Railway Bhawan Delhi as party OP3 and OP1 & OP2 are part of Railway Department though designation may be different. Therefore the complaint is maintainable against OPs and by not having the post at a particular Railway Station does not entitle the OP to plead that the complaint be dismissed for impleading wrong parties. The judgment in Sonic Surgical as relied upon by the Complainant does not support the stand of the OP as cause of action did arise at Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi where the booked parcel was to be delivered (Exhibit CW1/1) and this Commission has jurisdiction to examine the complaint filed by the complainant. 

            Now coming to the question as to why despite of booking of the goods for transportation from Khagadiya Railway Station, Bihar to Anand Vihar Railway Station Delhi by the OP on 17/10/2017 they did not deliver the same at Anand Vihar Railway Station on 18.10.2017 and OP has pleaded that there was restriction in taking orders of loading/unloading from 18/10/2017 to 25/10/2017 at Stations in Delhi including Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi on account of rush during Deepawali and Chhath Pooja. 

            OP is Railway Department and functions at lot many stations located in entire country.  The goods in question were booked by OP on 17/10/2017 at Khagadiya Railway Station, Bihar and at that time and date there was no restriction and OP had taken the booking and issued the receipt No.405882 against the payment of  Rs. 3620.10/-.  It may be true that Railway is imposing this type of restriction for security of passengers during the heavy rush on Deepawali & Chhath Pooja (though no documentary evidence in produced by the OP to this effect) and therefore officials must have been aware about the same however they still took the booking at Khagardiya Railway Station, Bihar on 17.10.20174 but failed to deliver the Parcel at Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi on 18.10.2017 citing restrictions imposed from 18.10.2017 to 25.10.2017.   

Such restriction must have been in place each year during Deepawali and Chatt Puja that if the restrictions were imposed each year then it was the paramount duty of the OP to convey in advance to all the Railway Stations coming under its command not to take any booking of parcel which were to reach Delhi during such restriction period. 

After taking the booking and then coming out with the plea that due to restriction imposed at Delhi the parcel could not be delivered is not convincing and is untenable. 

Further, when this particular Train returned from Delhi to Khagadiya and upon its reaching Khagadiya Railway Station, the agent/representative requested to at least allow the delivery there at Khagadiya Railway Station, then OP’s office should have looked into the same on account of the nature of the perishable item booked by them and allowed it and the same could still be sold there since it was meant for ‘Chhath Pooja’ and in Bihar this festival is celebrated at a very large scale and ‘Suthani’ fruit could have been sold there and Complainant could have mitigated her losses.  But on account of apathy of the officials of the OP at Khagadiya Station Bihar, this could not be done. 

The Train with the said parcel moved many times from Khagadiya, Railway Station, Bihar to Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi and vice-versa between 17/10/2017 and 04/11/2017 but this parcel was not delivered to the Complainant/ her representative as a result the fruit ‘Suthani” got perished by that time and Complainant was right in refusing to take delivery of the same on 04/11/2017 when offered by OP as it was of no use by that time and Chhatt Pooja was also over.

The Commission finds plausibility in the argument of the complainant that some sort of solution should have been explored by OP to deliver the booked articles at some isolated place/godown of the Railways in Delhi without compromising with the safety and security of public during Deepawali and Chhatt Pooja or on return at Khagadiya Railway Staion but this was also not done by the OP and there was high degree of insensitivity shown by the OP in handling this issue.

For the reasons stated supra, the Complainant is able to establish deficiency in service on the part of OP in not delivering the goods in time, which were perishable in nature, which resulted in huge financial loss to her.

  Complainant has not filed any supporting document towards the purchase value of the goods she had booked on 17.10.2017 with OP, however the Counsel for the Complainant has filed ‘Newspaper dated 24.10.2017’ which carries the report at which rate ‘Suthani’ was sold in Delhi during the Chhath Pooja at that time. According to that Newspaper Report ‘Suthani’ was sold at Rs. 100/- per kg.  It is not disputed that the Complainant had booked 20.40 quintals of ‘Suthani’ on 17.10.2017 (Exhibit-CW1/1). Complainant is an illiterate and poor lady and may not be knowing the intricacies of business of obtaining receipts from Cultivators however it is not disputed that her agent/representative had booked 20.40 quintals of ‘Suthani’ on 17.10.2017. This Commission is of the opinion that it will be further injustice done to the Complainant if after establishing deficiency in service on the part of OP, her complaint is rejected on this ground and therefore it will be in all fairness that the value of goods is decided on the basis of the rate it was sold during the relevant period in Delhi which comes to Rs.2,04,000/-. But this is selling rate of ‘Suthani’ in Delhi during Chhatt Pooja in 2017 and value of purchase has to be less than that amount minimum by 30% and according to the same such value comes to Rs.140000/- (approx).

Since, OP booked the parcel of the Complainant at Khagadiya Railway Station, Bihar on 17.10.2017 against payment of amount of Rs.3620.10/- but failed to deliver the same at the destination i.e. Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi, this Commission holds OP liable for deficiency of service and following directions is passed against the OP:

•  OPs to pay (jointly & severally) an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the Complainant @ 7% p.a. from 17.10.2017 till the date of payment alongwith Rs. 25000/- towards mental agony and legal expenses.
• This Order is to be complied within 30 days from the receipt of the same and in case of failure, OPs (jointly and severally) shall pay the pay interest @ 9% p.a. from 17.10.2017 on the amount mentioned in above para alongwith Rs.25000/- towards mental agony and legal expenses. 
• File be consigned to Record Room.