Haryana

StateCommission

A/67/2017

NORTHERN RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK PANDIT - Opp.Party(s)

RECEIVED FROM NCDRC,NEW DELHI

29 Mar 2017

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.67 of 2017 in

F.A. No.240 of 2013

Date of the Institution: 02.04.2013

Date of Decision: 29.03.2017

 

The General Manager Northern Railway Head Quarter Baroda House, New Delhi.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

Ashok Pandit, Advocate District Courts, Sonepat, R/oShiv Sadan, F-22, Sikka Colony, Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mrs. V.B.Sethi, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr.Kushagar Pandit, Advocate for the respondents.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It is alleged by the complainant that he booked Railway ticket from New Delhi to Bhusawal for 20.09.2010 in three tyre sleeper class. During journey his suit-case containing valuable cloths worth Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- was stolen.  He reported the matter to In-charge Railway Protection Force (RPF) and FIR was lodged at Railway Station Itarsi in Madhya Pradesh. As  opposite parties (O.Ps.) did not take care of the goods, they be directed to pay compensation  to the tune of Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of loss and compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat ( in short “District Forum”) was not having territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint. It was also alleged that the goods were not booked with them and that is why they were not liable to pay any compensation. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“Accordingly, the respondent no.1 is directed to compensate the complainant by making payment of Rs.30000/- (Rs. Thirty thousands) on account of loss of suite case containing valuable clothes and this  amount is directed to be paid to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 08.05.2012 till realization and further to compensate him to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Rs.Three thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing mental agony and harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

The present complaint, thus stands allowed qua respondent No.1 and stands dismissed qua respondent No.2 since this Forum finds no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.2.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. No.1 preferred appeal No.240 of 2013 on 02.04.2013, which was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 27.05.2013. Thereafter complainant  preferred revision before Hon’ble National Commission which was allowed on 21.12.2016 and directed this Commission to decide appeal on merits treating that complaint was maintainable before Consumer Fora.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that as per averments of complainant theft took place near Etarsi, Madhya Pradesh and tickets were booked from Delhi. So, complaint was not maintainable before District Forum, Sonepat. It is further argued that in complaint it was alleged that suite-case was containing valuable worth Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/-, but, in the absence of any evidence learned District Forum directed to pay Rs.30,000/- besides other relief.  So impugned order be set aside. In support of her arguments she placed reliance upon the opinion of  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 1 and opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in American Express Bank ltd, Vs. Rajesh Gupta & ors.2000 (1) CPC 316. 

7.      However there is no dispute about the opinion expressed in aforesaid case laws, but, vide order dated 21.12.2016, passed in revision petition No.2686 of 2013,  Hon’ble National Commission has opined that  complaint was maintainable before Consumer Fora, and this Commission should decide this appeal on merits. This order is not challenged by appellant anywhere and has attained finality. So, this commission is bound to decide the present matter on merits.  No doubt in Para No.3 of the complaint it was alleged that suite case was carrying valuable worth Rs.25,000-Rs.30,000/-. This very fact was also mentioned in affidavit filed by the complainant. So he is entitled for Rs.25,000/- only because there is no other evidence showing that value of goods was Rs.30,000/-. Resultantly impugned order dated  15.10.2012 is modified to the effect that complainant be paid Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/- mentioned therein besides other relief.  The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

March 29th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.