BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Tuesday, 27th September 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 17 / 2016
B.K. Sharif, S/o Lte Hussin Saheb, Retd. Employee,
Aged 61 years, D.No. 39/491, Upstairs, Y.s. Nagar,
Kadapa city and District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway,
2nd floor, Railnilyam, Head Quartrs office, Secunderabad.
2. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, S.C. Railway,
Guntakal, Anantapur District.
3. The parcel Supervisor, S.C. Railway, Kadapa (HX), Kadapa.
4. The Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda Bhavan, New Delhi. ………Respondents
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 20-9-2016 in the presence of Sri P.V. Sudhakar, Advocate for Complainant and Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3 and R4 set exparte on 28-7-2016 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The Complainant humbly submits that he is a resident of Kadapa town. The respondents are representing Indian Railway. The office of the R3 is located at Kadapa. The Complainant humbly submits that he went to New Delhi, along with his family to worship Hajarath Nizamuddin Darga. As a marriage function has to be performed in the month of January 2013, in his family, he purchased cloth articles to distribute to their relatives, near and dear and for marriage. In total the Complainant purchased clothes and gift articles worth Rs. 3,90,500/-. The Complainant got packed in five bundles. He booked all the five bundles through parcel way bill A-2071842, dt. 13-12-2012, duly paying the required charges of Rs. 4,065/- from Hazrah Nizamuddin Railway Station to Kadapa Railway Station. The total weight of five bundles is 419 kgs. He was also present at the time of loading his luggage in parcel van at NZM station on 14-12-2012 and it was also sealed up to Secunderabad station by Train No. 12708. The Complainant and his family travelled by the same train from NZM to Kadapa in coach No. B4.
3. The Complainant humbly submits that they got down at Kadapa station on 15-12-2012 and they approached the R3 for receiving parcel. The R3 was not able to deliver the luggage of the Complainant and stated that his luggage was misplaced. He requested some time to trace out the luggage of the Complainant. He informed the Complainant to come after 2 days so that he could contact the Respondents 1 & 2 to trace out the luggage. On the assurance given by R3, the Complainant left for the day and went back to the parcel office on 17-12-2012 but the R3 delivered only one bundle of weight of 90 kgs to the Complainant. He was not able to deliver the remaining four bundles and informed the Complainant that the remaining bundles were missing. An acknowledgement was given to that effect by the R3 stating that only one bundle was delivered and remaining four bundles are to be delivered to the Complainant. He also informed the Complainant to contact after a week period for claiming insurance for the lost parcel in case of permanent misplacement.
4. Later, the Complainant contacted the R3 and enquired about his luggage of four bundles. Since, he do not have any more time for purchase of clothes and articles for marriage, he was more concerned about the clothes and gift articles and he was not worried about insurance at that point of time. Later the Complainant followed up with R3 on regular basis but till date he was not able to deliver the parcel. Thus the Complainant sustained a los sof four bundles weighing 329 Kgs worth of Rs. 3,06,621/- due to the negligent and fraudulent attitude of the some of the staff working in Railways. The bundles were misplaced permanently or somebody might have committed theft of the same.
5. The Respondents 1 to 4 are jointly and severally responsible to the loss of Rs. 3,06,621/- sustained by the Complainant, due to non delivery of parcel. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents 1 to 4 apart from unfair and deceptive trade practice. The Complainant suffered mental agony and great loss due to the negligent attitude of all the Respondents. The Respondents 1 to 4 being responsible for the loss they are liable to pay the compensation to the Complainant.
6. Hence, the Respondents are bond to pay the compensation for the loss suffered by the Complainant i.e. cost of articles worth of Rs. 3,06,621/-. The Complainant got issued a notice to the Respondents but it is in vain. Therefore, the Complainant humbly prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to pass orders in favour of the complaint and against the Respondents jointly and severally and (a) direct the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 3,06,621/- with interest @ 24% from 17-12-2012 till the date of payment, (b) direct the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for the loss suffered and mental agony and (c) grant cost of the petition also grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
7. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter that the Complaint filed on behalf of the Complainant is bad, unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The Complainant is put to strict proof of all the averments mentioned in the complaint which are not expressly admitted herein by these Respondents.
8. These Respondents humbly submit that the averments of the Complainant that the Complainant went to New Delhi, along with his family to worship Hajarath Nizamuddin Darga and that as a marriage function has to be performed in the month of January 2013, in his family, he purchased cloth articles to distribute to his relatives, near and dear and for marriage and that in total he had purchased clothes and gift articles worth Rs. 3,90,500/- and he got packed them in five bundles and that he booked all the five bundles through parcel way bill A-2071842, dt. 13-12-2012, duly paying the required charges of Rs. 4,065/- from Hazarath Nizamuddin Railway Station to Kadapa Railway Station and that the total weight of five bundles are 419 kgs and that he was also present at the time of loading his luggage in parcel van at NZM station on 14-12-2012 and it was also sealed up to Secunderabad station by Train No. 12708 and that he and his family travelled in the same train from NZM to Kadapa in coach No. B4 etc., has to be strictly proved by the Complainant.
9. Further averments of the complaint that he got down at Kadapa station on 15-12-2012 and they approached the R3 for receiving parcel and that the R3 was not able to deliver his parcel luggage to him and stated that his luggage was misplaced and that the R3 requested some time to trace out his luggage and that the Complainant was informed by the R3 that to come after two days to so that he could contact the Respondents 1 & 2 to trace out the luggage and that on the assurance given by R3, he had left for the day and went back to the parcel office on 17-12-2012 but the R3 delivered only one bundle of weight of 90 Kgs to the Complainant and that he was not able to deliver the remaining four bundles and informed the Complainant that the remaining bundles were missing and that an acknowledgement was given to that effect by the R3 stating that only one bundle was delivered and remaining four bundles are to be delivered to the Complainant and that he also informed Complainant to contact after a week period for claiming insurance for the lost parcel in case of permanent misplacement etc., has to be strictly proved by the Complainant.
10. Further allegation of the Complainant that later, the Complainant had contacted R3 and enquired about his luggage of four bundles and that since he do not have more time for purchase of cloths and articles for marriage, he was more concerned about the cloths and gift articles and he is not worried about the insurance at that pint of time and that later, he followed up with the R3 on regular basis but till date the R3 was not able to deliver the parcel and that the Complainant sustained a loss of four bundles weighing 329 kgs worth of Rs. 3,06,621/- due to the negligent and fraudulent attitude of the some of the staff working in the railways. The bundles were misplaced permanently or somebody might have committed theft of the same etc., are all false.
11. The further allegation that the Respondents 1 to 4 are jointly and severally responsible to the loss of Rs. 3,06,621/- sustained by the Complainant, due to non delivery of parcel and that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents 1 to 4 apart from unfair and deceptive trade practice and that the Complainant has suffered mental agony and great loss due to the negligent attitude of all the Respondents and that the Respondents 1 to 4 being responsible for the loss, they are liable to pay the compensation to the complaint is false.
12. The allegation that the Respondents are bound to pay the compensation for the loss suffered to the Complainant i.e. cost of articles worth Rs. 3,06,621/- the Complainant got issued a notice to the Respondents but it is in vain, if false. The further allegation that the in fact, the Complainant had issued a notice to the Respondents on 31-12-2012 to make good the loss sustained by him, but the Respondents have not responded to his notice etc., are to be strictly proved by him. The Respondents humbly submit that section 103 of the Railways Act 1989 determines extent of monitory liability in respect of any consignment. Section : application for compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of goods shall be filed against the railway administration on whom a notice under section 106 has been served.
13. This respondent humbly submits that as per the information received from chief parcel supervisor / Kadapa that the plastic bundle unloaded by 57271 pass, by chief guard SLR which was received under handing over charge on 17-12-2012 under memo No. LT 1842/LT-5/1 P. Bundle RF 90Kgs Ex. NZM to HX. The same was made entry in delivery book and the delivered to the party on 17-12-2012 by taking his clear signature in the delivery book and issued partially delivery certificate to the Complainant by collecting original luggage ticket and cancelled the same.
14. It is submitted that in IRCM part – 1, schedule – II, chapter – XI, para No. 1101 states that, the person who is booking the parcels/luggage has to declare the value of the consignment while booking at the forwarding station and pay the necessary charges for the value declared if it exceeds the railway liability. The liability of the railway administration for loss, damage, destruction, deterioration or non delivery of any consignment the amount of liability of sucharilway administration in respect of such loss, damage destruction, deterioration or non – delivery shall not, unless the consigner has declared its value and paid percentage charge on excess value of such consignment and the amount payable is as follows. In case the of any consignment consisting of baggage, amount calculate is Rs. 100/- per kilogram. A higher limit of Rs. 100/- per kg, is applicable only and not to the merchandise booked as luggage of passenger. Here the luggage offered is not baggage, it is merchandise booked as luggage.
15. In this particular case the Complainant has not declared the value of the luggage of booking at the forwarding station, as such no PECV charges were also paid by the Complainant. In such case the liability of railway administration is only Rs. 100/- only per kilogram or part thereof. Further it is submitted that the Complainant is to be put to strict proof of the value of the luggage purchased and booked the same at the forwarding station.
16. It is submitted that as per the chapter III sec. 13 of the Railway claim Tribunal Act 1987 i.e. relating to the responsibility of the railway administration as carriers in chapter VII of the Railways /act in respect of claims for “compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a Railway administration for carriage by Railway shall be made to Railway claims tribunal only and as per section 15 of Railway claims tribunal Act” no court or authority shall have or been title to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to matters referred to in sub section (1) and (1A) of section 13. As such the Hon’ble forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain this case for redressal after a long period from the date of occurrence i.e. 17-12-2012. Further it is humbly submitted that the subject claims matter comes under exclusive jurisdiction of the Railway claims Tribunal, secunderabad. The Respondents further humbly submit that in view of the facts, circumstances and provisions of the law, the Complainant is not eligible for the relief prayed for in this complaint.
17. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents or not?
iii. To what relief?
18. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A5 were marked and on behalf Respondent Exs. B1 to B4 were marked.
19. Point Nos. 1 & 2. As per record and documentary evidence, it is true that the Complainant had booked parcel at Nizamuddin Railway Station from New Delhi to Kadapa under Ex. A1. The Complainant travelled in the same train under Ex. A2. The Complainant had purchased cloths at New Delhi under Ex. A3. Ex. A4 also proved the same. Ex. B1 & B2 also proves the same that the Complainant had booked parcel at Hazarath Nizamuddin Railway Station, New Delhi to Kadapa. So, as seen from averments of the complaint the documents filed by the Complainant it is very clear that the Complainant had booked five bundles at Hazarath Nizamuddin Railway Station on 13-12-2012. The Complainant also travelled in the same train and the parcels were missed. Ex. B1 and B2 also prove the same. So in the above circumstances the Complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him at the same time there is gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents 1 to 4.
20. Point No. 3. In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the Respondents 1, 2, 3 & 4 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3,06,621/- (Rupees three lakhs six thousand six hundred and twenty one only) towards loss of 4 bundles of cloths, pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards mental agony and pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders. If the Respondent 1, 2, 3 & 4 failed to comply the orders, the amount of Rs. 3,06,621/- (Rupees three lakhs six thousand six hundred and twenty one only) shall carry 12% interest from the date of payment till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 27th September 2016.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex: A1 Copy of parcel way bill no. A-2071842, Dt. 13-12-2012.
Ex: A2 Copy of Ticket No.05015526, Dt. 14-12-2012.
Ex: A3 Original Purchase Bills 4 nos. Dt. 11-12-2012, 12-12-2012, 12-12-2012,
11-12-2012.
Ex: A4 Copy of acknowledgement card of Parcel Office, Kadapa, Dt. 17-12-2012.
Ex: A5 Notice Dt. 31-12-2012.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents : -
Ex:B1 Extract copy of unloading book by 57274 pass chief guard SLR of
17-12-2012.
Ex:B2 Extract copy of delivery book on 17-12-2012.
Ex:B3 IRCM-part I chapter XI , The railways act, 1981, Sec 103, 106, 107.
Ex:B4 Copy of Railways Claims Tribunal Act,. Chapter III.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri P.V. Sudhakar, Advocate for Complainant.
- Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3.
- The Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda Bhavan, New Delhi
B.V.P.
