BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. : MEMBER
SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C..No. 186/2009 Filed on 23/07/2009
Dated : 16..02..2011
Complainant:
T.S. Babulal, Laal Metal Trading, 18, Baskarapandian Compound, 2nd Floor, Sourashtra Teachers Colony, Madurai – 9, Tamilnadu.
(By Adv. R. Krishnappan Nair)
Opposite parties:
The Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai.
The Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Chief Claims Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai.
(Opp. Parties 1 to 3 by Adv.S. Renganathan)
This O.P having been heard on 04..01..2011, the Forum on 16..02..2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A., MEMBER:
Brief facts of the case are as follows: That the complainant is the Proprietor of Laal Metal Trading, a proprietary concern dealing with ferrous, copper, other metals, electricals, hardwares etc... On 19/5/2008, the complainant as per bill No. 060700 dated 19/5/2008 entrusted 375 kgs of copper wire (net 361 kg) in 5 gunny bags at the office of the Salem Junction to be delivered at Ernakulam Town Railway Station of the 2nd opposite party. The consignment was sent on 20/5/2008 through Train No. 6526 from Salem. The complainant handed over the original bill to the consignee Mr. David R.V., New India Metals, Market Road, Ernakulam. As per the advice of the complainant the consignee approached the Chief Parcel Officer, Southern Railway, Ernakulam Town along with the original R.R. Bill and requested for the delivery of the said copper wire. The goods were not delivered, because of non delivery the applicant and the consignee approached the opposite parties 2 & 3 and other subordinate employees of the Southern Railway in person and in writing. As a result of the claim made by the complainant the 3rd opposite party intimated him that Rs. 18,052/- has been sanctioned for the loss caused to the complainant due to the non delivery of the goods. The amount proposed by the opposite party is very low compared with the value of goods and the loss caused to the complainant. So he has not received the same and the present complaint is necessitated. The consignment has not misdelivered. It was purposely stolen and misappropriated by the employees under the opposite parties. The Officers at the Ernakulam Town Station informed the complainant that the goods might have been unloaded at Thiruvananthapuram and also they told that two gunny bags reached there. Such an attitude of the opposite parties are also most unbecoming and is an unfair trade practice. The value of the copper is being increased day by day. The complainant paid compensation to the consignee. Moreover he received Rs. 50,000/- as advance from the consignee, for that the consignee filed a case before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. In all respect the transaction of the complainant with the opposite party has put the complainant under serious loss and hardship. His relation with the consignee has become strained. His image in the field of trading has also become tainted. His good will and reputation in the field has also shattered. So the complainant is entitled to recover the following loss and damages from the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
2. The opposite parties Southern Railway filed their version. The opposite parties stated that the complainant had not declared the details of consignments and their individual value, nor paid the percentage charges thereon as required under Section 103 (2) of Railways Act, 1989 and rules thereon. The opposite parties submitted that the claim in this case is towards non-delivery of 5 Gunny Bags which is covered under Section 13(1)(a)(i) and Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the complainant has preferred this claim before this Forum well after the establishment of the Claims Tribunal and this Forum has no jurisdiction. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. In this case, complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has been examined as PW1. From his side 7 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. The opposite parties filed affidavit and later they submitted that they have no oral evidence and not pressed their affidavit.
Points that would arise for consideration are:-
Whether there has been deficiency in service from the side of opposite partis?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
4. Points (i) & (ii) : The opposite parties admitted the transaction between the complainant and opposite parties. The main contention of the opposite party is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complainant did not disclose the value of the content at the time of entrusting the parcel. And hence they are only liable to pay Rs. 50 per kg as per Section 103 of Railway Act, 1989 and therefore they are ready to pay Rs. 18,052/- to the complainant (Rs. 50 x 361.04 kgs). This offer is the admission of their negligence and deficient service. As per the complainant the value of the 361 kgs of copper wires is Rs. 1,48,026/-. As per Ext. P2 the total value of the copper wire is seen Rs. 1,45,928/-. The complainant sent the parcel through the opposite parties to deliver at Ernakulam Railway Station. But the opposite parties did not deliver the parcel to the consignee. Ext. P1 is the parcel way bill issued by the Southern Railway dated 19/5/2008. In this bill in the description No.of articles column it is stated that Five Gunny bags of copper wires. Weight of the article is noted as 375 kgs. Charge paid for 380 kg is Rs. 465/-. From this document we can clearly see that the complainant has disclosed the contents of the parcel to the opposite parties. Exts. P3 to P5 are the letters issued by the complainant to the Railway Authorities to trace out his parcel and to the request them to settle his claim. Ext. P6 is the offer letter issued by the Chief Claims Officer. They offered Rs. 18,052/- in full and final settlement. The complainant did not accept that settlement. Ext. P7 is the copy of loading register issued by Parcel Supervisor, Southern Railway, Salem Jn. As per the letter they accepted the parcel and loading to Ernakulam. But the parcel was not delivered to the consignee at Ernakulam. Through these documents the complainant has proved his complaint beyond doubt. The opposite parties also admitted their fault and offered damages. But the offer is a very meagre amount compared with its value. Due to the negligent and deficient act of the opposite parties complainant has suffered too much financial loss, mental agony and the complainant stated that due to this incident his image in the field of trading has also become tainted, his good will and reputation in the field has also shattered.
5. One of the main contention of the opposite parties is that as per Railway Claims Tribunal has power to appoint the authority to decide claims and also Section 15 of the Railways Act debars the jurisdiction of any Court or authority in respect of the matters referred in Sub Section 1 of Section 13 of Railways Act 1989. But as per Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of this Act give the consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other existing laws. The other contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant had not declared the value of the consignment at the time of entrustment for carriage and on its declared value a certain percentage charge is levied which was not paid. In this case the complainant has produced the consignment note as PW1. In that document all the columns were seen filled, no where in that document there is a column to declare the value of the articles. In that document the description of article filled and stated that Five Gunny bags of copper wires. The weight or measurement is noted as 375 kgs and as per the weight of the articles the Railway authorities levied Rs. 455/- as parcel charge. If there is a specific rule to declare the value of the contents and percentage of its value to be paid, it is the duty of the Raiwlay authorities to take charge from the complainant. In this case the complainant had paid the prescribed charge to the opposite parties as per Ext. P1document.Hence the opposite parties cannot evade from their liability. It is the duty of the opposite parties to deliver the parcel to the consignee. In this case there is negligence and deficiency in service occured from the side of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties are held liable for their act. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the value of the article which has been lost due to the negligent and deficient service of the opposite parties ie. Rs. 1,45,928/- with 9% annual interest from 19/5/2008 and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount shall carry 12% annual interest from the date of order till the date of realisation.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of February, 2011.
BEENA KUMARI. A.,
MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA,. MEMBER
ad.
C.C. No. 186/2009
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : T.S. Babu Lal
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of bill No. 060700 dated 19/5/2008 issued by the Parcel Officer, Salem Junction, Southern Railway.
P2 : Copy of Tax Invoice
P3 : Copy of letter dated 29/5/2008
P4 : " " 30/5/2008
P5 : " claim bill No. LMT/B58/2008 SR(1) dated 20/10/2008.
P6 : " letter dated 17/12/2008
P7 : " Loading Register
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
