Delhi

New Delhi

CC/943/2011

Dr. Shitla Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. GM Northern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 943/2011                                                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

 Dr. Shitla Prasad,

E-268, Beta-1,

Greater Noida

Uttar Pradesh

....COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

General Manager

Northern Railway

Head Quarters

Baroda House, New Delhi

        .....OPPOSITE PARTY

 

       PRESIDENT- ARUN KUMAR ARYA

 

          ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the retired Director General from the Govt. of India and he booked two Railway Tickets in the Allahabad Duranto Exp. vide ticket no. 68580067 and PNR no. 212-3035879 on 20/07/2011 in AC three Tier. It is alleged that the Allahabad Duranto Exp. was scheduled to departure on 20/07/2011 at 23.00 PM PM from New Delhi Railway Station. It is further alleged that the complainant was accompanied with her wife and carrying two VIP suitcases containing valuable, jewellery and cloths amounting to Rs. 1.15 lacs. It is further alleged that the complainant hired coolie namely Sh. Dharam Singh having batch no. 852 for carrying suitcases of the complainant and during the movement in x-ray checking machine one VIP suitcase of the complainant was lost by the above mentioned coolie with the connivance of the railway employees present at the spot of the X-ray checking machine. It is further alleged that the complainant approached immediately to the SHO P.S. Railway Station, New Delhi on 20/07/2011 at 10.30 PM and provided written complaint against the coolie and Railway employees present at the spot of the X-ray checking machine for taking legal action against them. The copy of the written complaint to the SHO P.S. Railway Station, New Delhi dated 20/07/2011 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure C-2.

 It is further alleged that the complainant could not provide the details of the jewellery, valuables and cloths at that moment as he had to catch to train and the train was ready to depart from the platform and the complainant approached to the Chief commercial manager Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi on 25/07/2011 through written complaint for taking appropriate legal action against the coolie and other concerned railway employees, who were present at the spot of X-ray checking machine. The G.M. Northern Railway sent letter bearing no. 11CT/RPF-19/11 dated 26/0/2011 to the CSC/RPF Northern Railway, New Delhi for investigation of the matter but till date no action has been taken by the OP. It is further alleged that the complainant had finally sent notice dated 22/08/2011 to the chief commercial manager Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi for taking appropriate legal action against the OP but no action has been taken hence this complaint.

OP was noticed and OP had filed written statement. It is stated on behalf of OP that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law as there is no negligency on the part of railway, because the fact that the coolies are not employees of the railway. Passengers booked them for their own facility and pay the coolies. The alleged incident, if occurred, in the presence of complainant himself the complainant was present at the spot. The coolie was with him so he cannot blame others for the incident if any. The allegations of connivance is also denied. It is further stated by OP that the negligency on the part of any coolie is not considered the neglegency of the railway.

Both the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit, we have heard arguments advance at the bar and perused the records.

However, during the course of the arguments counsel for OP has   raised the objection that the complainant is not a consumer as he has not paid any consideration to the railways and the complainant has failed to proof that he had paid any consideration to the OP. The complainant, therefore, does not qualify as a ‘consumer’ within the provisions of section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
 

Consequently, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable, the same is hereby dismissed. Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free  of   cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.  File be consigned to Record Room.  Announced in open Forum on 18/03/2019    (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)           PRESIDENT (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                      (H M VYAS)        MEMBER                                                                                     MEMBER