Heard learned counsel for the appellants on V.C. None appears for the respondent.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The unsworn details of the case of the complainant is that complainant had booked parcel of two  bags from Raipur to Rayagada on 15.10.2012 and the parcel reached Rayagada but not delivered to the complainant. Complainant approached several times and personally has gone to the OPs but all were in vain and finally the OPs told that the parcel is untraceable and paid a paltry amount of Rs.2,500/- against the said parcels although the value of material in the parcel was   at Rs.8,610/-. So the complainant filed the complaint with prayer to direct the OPs to pay the rest of the money with compensation.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that there was  booking of consignment by the complainant on 15.10.2012 but the complainant has not declared the value of the goods as required u/s 103(2) of Railways Act, 1989. However, when the consignment was not found out, they made valuation as per the para 3118 of 3(iii) of Indian Railway Commercial Manual, Vol.II of 1991 and as such  settled the amount of Rs.2,500/- and paid to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

5.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum has passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            The OP is directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.6110/- and the consignment charges incurred by the complainant along with compensation of  Rs.500/- which includes cost of litigation to the complainant within thirty days of receipt of this order.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by throwing burden on the OPs to guide the complainant to show the value of the goods but on the other hand, the necessary form clearly shows that the complainant has to declare the value of the goods so as to claim same in case of missing or untraceable consignment. So he submitted that the impugned order may be set aside by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      The complainant is required to prove that the consignment he has sent has the material of value of Rs.8,610/-. Not a single document is produced by the concerned complainant in this regard. On the other hand, the OPs produced true copy of the consignment declaration form where at clause 2 requires to declare the value of the goods but it is left blank. So the learned District Forum without considering such form required u/s  69 of the Railways Act, 1989 has thrown the burden on the OPs to make the complainant aware to mention the value of the property. Apart from this, under Railways (Extent of monetary liability and prescription of percentage charge) Rules, 1990, the amount calculated at Rs.50/- per kg  for 50 kg of goods next should be the value and accordingly, same has already been paid. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that the learned District Forum passed the impugned order without going through the relevant fact and law involved in this case. Hence, the said impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

        The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

        DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties. The copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.