Before the District consumers Forum Kurnool
Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C. Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, B.com LL.B, Member
Thursday the 31st day of July, 2003
C.D.No.88/2002
V.Muddappa,
S/o V.Mallanna,
Manager Y.W.C.S., Stores,
Mantralayam Village and Mandal,
Kurnool District. . ..Complainants represented by their
Counsel Sri.J.P.Basava Raj, Advocate.
-Vs-
- The Booking Officer,
South Central Railway,
Mantralayam Road,
Railway Station,
Kurnool District.
- The Chief Claims Officer,
South Central Railway,
Head Quarters Officer,
Commll (Claims) Branch,
Secunderabad-500 071 (A.P.).
- The Chief Claims Officer,
Northern Railway,
New Delhi. .. . Opposite parties 1 to 3 represented by their
Counsel Sri.M.D.Y.Rama Moorthy, Advocate.
O R D E R
CC.No.88/2002
1. This Consumer dispute case of the complainant under section 12 of the C.P. Act is filed seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay him Rs.8,600/- towards the cost of the missed goods sent through Railway Parcel Service and Rs.10,000/- as damages along with the costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case as per his complaint is that on 14.02.2000 he booked a parcel containing clock shellacs worth Rs.8,600/- in a gunny bag at Mantralayam Railway Station to the reach to the Manager SRS Matt, New Delhi by paying its booking charges of Rs.90/- and obtained a receipt bearing No.5546243 from the opposite party No.1 and intimated the said fact to the concerned address. On 29.05.2000 a telegram from the said address came to the complainants as to the not reaching of the said parcel. On approach with the opposite party No.1 the complainant was advised to lodge a complaint with opposite party No.2 and hence the complainant sent a Registered letter for the claim of Rs.8,600/- on 27.04.2000 as the parcel missed. To that on 10.05.2000 the opposite party No.2 replied that the copy was forwarded to the opposite party No.3 as the destination of the aid parcel is New Delhi. On 14.07.2000 the complainant got issued a Registered Notice through his counsel to the opposite party No.3 claiming Rs.8,600/-. The opposite party No.3 receiving the said notice did not reply and hence the complainant got issued another legal notice dated 29.02.2001 and the said notice was acknowledged by their address. On 10.10.2000 the opposite party No.3 addressed a Registered Letter to the complaint requiring him to send the original documents towards the settlement of the claim. Hence the complainant has sent on 19.10.2000 the original parcel way bill, original trade invoice and a letter of undertaking to refund the amount paid if goods are subsequently traced as required by the opposite party No.3. But the claim was not settled and hence on 07.12.2000 and 29.02.2001 he caused another Registered Legal Notices to the opposite party No.3. Even then there was no response or compliance of the demand from the opposite party. The above said conduct of the opposite party ensured lot of suffering and mental agony besides irreparable loss and has left the complainant with no other alternative except to resort to the Forum for the redressal of his grievance.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case while the opposite parties 1 and 3 did not choose to file either any written version of them in defence to the complaint averments nor contested the matter by purring up any defence. The opposite party No.2 i.e., The Chief Claims Officer, South Central Railway, Commercial Claims Branch, Secunderabad filed its written version in defence of the complaint averments and to contest the case. The written version of the opposite party No.2 besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainant’s case in law and facts allege the non declaration of value of goods by the complainant while booking the parcel and not paying the percentage charges and the relief of compensation for the loss of the goods or non-delivery of the goods entrusted to the Railway as not maintainable before the Direct Forum in view of the constitution of separate Railway Claims Tribunal as per section 13 and 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and seeks the rejection of the complainant’s case summarily in view of the bar of the jurisdiction as up held by the National Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.197/1992 dated 04.03.1999. It further submits that the claim of the complainant was settled in full and final payment at the claims stage for Rs.1,100/- paying the same to the complainant computing the said amount on the net weight of the parcel of 22 Kgs at the rate of Rs50/- per Kg and hence seeks the dismissal of the complaint case with costs as the case is filed in suppression of the above facts.
4. The complainant merely encloses to the complaint office copy of the lawyers notice dated 20.09.2000, copy of the under taking letter dated 19.10.2000, officer copy of the legal notice dated 07.12.2000, office copy of the legal notice dated 20.02.2001 telegram dated 25.05.2000 received by the complainant, letter dated 10.03.2000 addressed to the opposite party No.1 and 5 postal acknowledgements. The complainant did not file any sworn affidavit of his in substantiation of the complaint contentions and in support of the supra documents filed hence those documents are not marked for want of their proof as mere filing of documents doesn’t dispense their proof.
5. The opposite party No.2 encloses to its written version the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No.197/1992 dated 04.03.1993 and Xerox copy of the letter dated 12.02.2001 addressed to the opposite party No.1 directing payment of Rs.1,100/- to the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim. As the opposite party has not filed any sworn affidavit in support of its contention and the communication of the said settlement the said was not marked as exhibits as mere filing of the said documents does not dispense with the case.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out his case for being entertained by this Forum and of his entitleness to the reliefs sought?:-
7. It is the claim against the Railways for the missed consignment sent by the complainant booking through Railway Booking Officer, Manatralayam Road, (opposite party No.1). The contentions of the opposite party No.2 as to the settlement of claim of the complainant for Rs.1,100/- in full and final settlement of it was not disputed by the complainant. The said fact being not mentioned in the complaint the complainant is remaining faulty of suppression of facts. Further this Forum is not a competent body to sit in appeal over the settled claim for Rs.1,100/-. Further from the orders of the National Commission in R.P.No.197/1992, dated 04.03.1993 given in the matter of M/s Mukesh Enterprises -Vs- Chief Commercial Superintendent Claims and another, what appears is that section 15 of the Railways Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 read with section 13 of the same enactment operates to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts including that of the Consumer’s Forum in respect of Railway Claims. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this Forum remains excluded in the light of the above decision to entertain the complainant grievances as to the missing of consignment booked by him through Railway Booking Office, Mantralayam Road.
8. When thus the jurisdiction of this Forum and competency of this Forum to entertain the grievance of the complainant is remaining excluded. It is not remaining necessary to go in to the other material and to decide the case on merits especially when the complainant left the case un-represented since the appearance and filing of the written version of the opposite party No.2.
9. Since the complaint is held as not maintainable before this Forum under section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, and no further proceedings could be entertainable before this Forum on final settlement of the claim for want of any appellate jurisdiction to this Forum. The complainant is at liberty to approach the concerned Railways Tribunal for the necessary relief if not approached so far, invoking the benefits of section1 4 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the C.P. Act while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a legal remedy.
10. Therefore, in consequence of the above discussion, the case of the complainant is dismissed with supra stated observations. In the circumstances each party to the case bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to the dictation, corrected by us, and pronounced in the Open Court this the 31st day of July, 2003.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainants:-Nil For the opposite parties:-Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainants:- Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
//Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10)
of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
