Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/565/2016

Manoj Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian railway - Opp.Party(s)

In person

11 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/565/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	21/07/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	11/10/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Manoj Sharma son of Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, Permanent Address: House No.3354, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh (U.T). Correspondence Address: Flat No. D-503, Grandeur Society, Bhumkar Nagar, Ambegaon Budruk, Pune – 411046.

 

……… Complainant.

Versus

 

1)   Indian Railway, Northern Railway, Ambala Division, Chandigarh Railway Station, Daria, Chandigarh – 160101, through its DRM (Divisional Railway Manager).

 

2)   Indian Railway, Central Railway, Pune Division, Pune Railway Station, Pune – 411001, through its DRM (Divisional Railway Manager).

 

3)   Indian Railway, South Western Railway, Bengaluru Division Yesvantpur Railway Station, Tumkur Main Rd., Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560022, through its DRM (Divisional Railway Manager).

 

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Hitender Kansal, Advocate.
For OPs No.1 & 3	:	Sh. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Manoj Sharma, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Indian Railways & Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he had travelled from Chandigarh to Pune along with his family on 30.01.2016 in Train No.22686 (YPR S KRANTI EXP, PNR No. 2754569050). During the said journey his two bags were destroyed by the rats. The Complainant accordingly, lodged a Complaint on Complaint Book with TT at Bhopal Station under Sr. No. 049709 on 30.01.2016 and demanded claim compensation of Rs.17,000/- for the loss caused. Having failed to get any positive response, the Complainant even tried to approach the Opposite Parties by all possible means, with a request to compensate him for the loss caused (Annexure C-4 to C-8), but to no success. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.     

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. Since, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the Complainant neither booked the alleged bags (luggage) nor paid any charges for the same while travelling. Further, as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, Railways is not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of un-booked luggage. Thus, the Railways cannot be made responsible for un-booked luggage. The Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.3 in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has taken similar pleas as were taken by the Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement. In the end, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The Complainant filed separate rejoinders wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the reply by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 have been controverted.

 

6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

8.      The Opposite Parties have raised an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. However, we are not impressed with the same, for the reason that the Complainant had booked his tickets from Chandigarh, paid journey amount at Chandigarh and undertook his journey from Chandigarh. In these set of circumstances, we hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present consumer Complaint.

 

9.      The key controversy swirls around the short question, “whether the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant for the damage caused to his luggage by the rodents/rates”? 

 

10.      Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in the affirmative.

 

11.      On perusal of Annexures C-7 and C-8 which are a grievance status on the Complaints filed by the Complainant with the Opposite Parties, it is evident that the Opposite Parties themselves had admitted that there were chances of rat entering in to coach during stabling at Chandigarh and that the matter was examined. The Opposite Parties further informed the Complainant that periodic disinfestation and rodent control treatment were being carried out through outside agency and the said Agency had been suitably counselled and the inconvenience caused was deeply regretted. It is thus proved on record that the damage to the luggage of the Complainant was caused by the rodents/rats due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties.

 

12.      In the light of above observations, the present Complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To pay Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant for the loss caused to his luggage;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, for unfair trade practice and loss suffered by the Complainant; 

 

[c]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

 

13.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11^th Oct., 2017                                                 Sd/-         

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

       PRESIDENT

 

                                                Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER