NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4027/2009

RAMESH CHANDER DHAWAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

15 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4027 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 25/05/2009 in Appeal No. 481/2002 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. RAMESH CHANDER DHAWANS/o Sh. Manohar Lal, Reisdent of Inside Amritsari Gate, Near Bhalla Flour Mill,Ferozpur ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIAThrough Secretary, Ministry of Railways,NEW DELHI ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 15 Jan 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

In this revision filed by the complainant, challenge is to the order dated 25.05.09 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. UT, Chandigarh allowing appeal against the order of a District Forum dated 17.01.02 and dismissing the complaint. Petitioner alleged that on 20.11.99 he had booked against ticket a consignment of suiting/shirting weighing 65 Kgs. valued at Rs.49,820/- for being transported from Bombay Central to Ferozepur with the respondent/opposite party which did not reach destination and was not delivered. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the respondent/opposite party Railways he filed complaint seeking refund of the said money along with compensation etc. On contest, complaint was allowed by the District Forum which order in appeal filed by the respondent, has been set aside by the State Commission in terms of the order under challenge. ..2.. Having heard Petitioner, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the State Commission that the jurisdiction of consumer forum in this case is barred by Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and complaint was, therefore, not maintainable under the C.P. Act, 1986. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed being without any merit.