Delhi

East Delhi

CC/264/2022

K. GOPALKRISHNAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

NORTHERN RAILWAY - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2023

ORDER

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.264/2022

 

	K. Gopalakrishnan Flat No. 97-B, Pocket-A-3, Mayur Residency Welfare Association, Mayur Vihar-3, Delhi-110096	….Complainant
Versus
1.     2.	Northern Railway, NDCR Building, State Entry Road, New Delhi-110055.   Northern Railway, Through General Manager, Head Quarter Office, Baroda, New Delhi-110001.	……OP1     ……OP2

 

Date of Institution: 03.06.2022

Judgment Reserved on: 25.05.2023

Judgment Passed on: 31.05.2023

                       

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms.Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Ordered By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

ORDER

 

1. By this order Commission shall dispose off complaint of the complainant w.r.t. deficiency in service by OP in not returning the booked luggage in proper condition and causing loss to the complainant.
2. Brief facts stated by the Complainant in complaint are that he booked a railway ticket for travel for Delhi to Chennai on 13.07.2016 and also booked his household items Vide PRR No. 4000396413 and paid Rs. 2802/- for such booking and when he reached Delhi on 15.07.2016 at 23:55 p.m. he could not take his goods on account of ill-health and reached delivery office on 17.07.2016 but he was shocked to see that goods were not in proper condition and bundles were imperfect and in depraved condition, torn open and crumbled and accordingly complainant refused to accept his goods in such condition and made a complaint to Clerk In-charge of Delivery Office but he refused to listen to him rather told him to receive the goods as nothing was found missing from the bundles. However such Clerk refused to entertain his complaint and not only this even an amount of Rs. 213/- was charged from him for keeping goods safe for two days and complainant under these circumstances had no choice except to receive the bundles in bad conditions and came home. After opening the bundles at his house he found that his valuable books, three camaras, clothes, certain certificates and one mayur jug, with household utensils were missing for which he submitted his claim for the loss to the OP Vide Claim Letter dated 09.08.2016 and asked for damages for Rs. 10,000/- for the missing items Vide Letter Dated 27.09.2016.
3. The OP rejected the claim by mentioning that consignment delivered to the complainant was given under clear receipt on 17.07.2016 and as such his claim was treated as closed. He was advised to approach Northern-Railway by Letter date 14.10.2016 if he has any grievance against that order and thereafter complainant wrote various letters to different authorities from 15.11.2016 to 19.09.2018 and he was always given reply that the claim has been closed.
4. Ultimately he sent to the Legal Notice to OP on 07.02.22 demanding compensation of Rs. 80,000/-  but even that was not replied and then he filed the present complaint thereby claiming deficiency in service on the part of OP and seeking cost w.r.t. lost articles to the extent to Rs. 10000/- and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
5. Notice was served upon OP but despite service the OP did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.11.2022. Complainant has filed his evidence and Commission has heard the arguments. No document has been filed on record as to what articles he despatched from Chennai to Delhi and as such it cannot be appreciated as to how much luggage was booked by him and how much luggage he received at the office of OP on 17.07.2016. Therefore the claim w.r.t. loss/lost articles cannot be appreciated. There is no document either at the time of booking the luggage or at the time of receiving the consignment so that the same can be compared as to what exactly were found missing. Further he did not open the articles prior to taking the delivery nor matched the same with the list which he might be having with himself rather received the delivery of articles in good condition as mentioned in the receipt itself. Therefore, taking all these facts into consideration the complainant was not able to prove his contention.
6. Above all, the claims of the complainant was rejected by the OP as per on his admission on 14.10.2016 and he approached this Commission on 03.06.22 when enquired as to why in-ordinate delay has happened in approaching this Commission he submits that he had been writing various letters to the OPs, and other different authorities and as such his complaint is within limitation. He also submitted that on account of the fact that he served the legal notice upon the OP in February 2022 & that fact bring the matter within limitation. The Commission is of the opinion that giving the notice in 2022 and without any acknowledgement by OP, cannot extend the limitation period. The complainant may choose to give notice at any point of time and even after sufficiently/reasonable period. Therefore issuing of notice by complainant would not extend the limitation. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation also and therefore is liable to be rejected. Complaint of the complainant accordingly rejected.
3. opy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 31.05.2023.