Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/299

Ram Chander Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Northern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

Manjinder Singh

26 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:299 dated 11.06.2021.                                                         Date of decision: 26.10.2023.

 

Ram Chander Kumar aged about 36 years son of Sh. Raghunandan Paswan, R/o.H. No.2043, St. No.33, Janta Nagar, Ludhiana                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Head Quarter, Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Divisional Manager (Commercial), Northern Railway, Railway Station, Near Clock Tower, Ludhiana.
3. The Chief Commercial Manager (Claims), Eastern Central Railway, Hazipur, Bihar.                                                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Manjinder Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Kamaljit Sharma, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that on 27.04.2019, the complainant purchased Yamaha Motor cycle bearing registration No.PB-10-DR-7224 from Sh. Sukhwinder Singh S/o. Sh. Amrik Singh, R/o. H. No.33, Vill. Dugri, The. Payal, Distt. Ludhiana, which the complainant had to sent/delivered to his native village at Patna. Accordingly, the complainant booked a train ticket for himself in train No.12332 Himgiri Express on 28.06.2019 and also purchased one luggage ticket from opposite party No.2 for sending his bike to Patna in the same train on 28.06.2019. The opposite parties assured for safe delivery of the bike to its destined place and charged Rs.2000/-. The complainant further stated that on reaching Patna, he visited the concerned office to take delivery of the bike but opposite epartyNo.3 told that they have not received any luggage/bike of the complainant. After checking the ticket of regarding booking of bike, opposite party No.3 told that the bike of the complainant has been stolen/misplaced and assured to find and deliver the same to the complainant within few days. Thereafter, the complainant many times visited office of opposite parties to take possession of his vehicle but the opposite parties lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other pretext and finally failed to deliver the vehicle despite expiry of 22 months. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 30.04.2021 to the opposite parties through his counsel but no reply was received. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has requested to issue direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- being value of the vehicle along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses.

3.                Upon notice, OP1 and OP2 filed joint written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint; the complainant himself guilty of negligence etc. OP1 and OP2 stated that the complainant failed to lodge the claim with them within period of six months from the date of booking and as per section 106 of the Railway Act, 1989, the complainant will have to lodge the complaint with regard to his misplaced articles within the period of six months.

                   On merits, OP1 and OP2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and facts of the case. However, OP1 and OP2 admitted the fact of booking of motorcycle vide PW Bill No.826312 dated 28.06.2019 by the CPS/LDH for PNBE and the same was loaded in the train No.12332 on same day after duly acknowledge the packages including the said motorcycle for Patna Junction by the guard of the train. As such, as per Railway Extent Rules, the responsibility for unloading the motorcycle and delivery to the complainant leis with the destination station i.e. CPS/PNBE. OP1 and OP2 have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                OP3 filed separate written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint; the complainant himself guilty of negligence etc. OP3 stated that the complainant himself has failed to deposit the original documents required by it for settling the claim of the complainant despite repeated requests and demands, so OP3 is unable to settle the claim of the complainant in the absence of original documents required for this purpose.

                   On merits, OP3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and facts of the case. However, OP3 admitted the fact of booking one train ticket and also booking one purchased luggage ticket from opposite party No.2. OP3 stated that it wrote letters dated 30.07.2019, 06.09.2019, 25.10.2019 and final letter dated 19.11.2019 to the complainant to deposit the original documents and finally informed the complainant with regard to dismissal of his claim for want of original documents vide letter dated 10.08.2021.  OP3 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of receipt regarding sale of motor cycle, Ex. C2 is the copy of affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh regarding sale of motor cycle, Ex. C3 is the copy of RC, Ex. C4 is the copy of insurance policy of the vehicle, Ex. C5 is the copy of pollution certificate, Ex. C6 is the copy of luggage ticket, Ex. C7 is the copy of electronic reservation slip, Ex. C8 is the copy of complaint dated 30.07.2019, Ex. C9 is the copy of legal notice dated 30.04.2021, Ex. C10 to Ex. C12 are the postal receipts, Ex. C13 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant  and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Vimal Kalra, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager/FS, Northern Railway, Ferozepur as well as affidavit Ex. RB of Sh. Abdul Haque, Assistant Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur, District Patna along with documents Ex. R1 is the claim denial letter dated 10.08.2021, Ex. R2 is the copy of letter dated 19.11.2019, Ex. R3 is the copy of letter dated 25.11.2019, Ex. R4 is the copy of letter dated 06.09.2019, Ex. R5 is the copy of complaint dated 30.07.2019 of the complainant, Ex. RC is the copy of Railway Act, 1989  and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with documents produced on record by both the parties.

7.                It is an admitted case of the complainant that on 28.06.2019, he booked his motorcycle with the opposite party No.2 for transporting the same at Patna but on reaching Patna, the complainant could not get the delivery of his motor cycle from opposite party No.3. After checking, opposite party No.3 declared the motor cycle to be stolen/misplaced. The complainant was asked to submit the original documents for settlement of his claim. However, the complainant himself failed to submit the original documents with opposite party No.3 despite issuance of letters Ex. R2 to Ex. R4 and as such, vide letter dated 10.08.2021 Ex. R1, the claim of the complainant was dismissed for want of original documents.

8.                Perusal of letters Ex. R2 to Ex. R4 reveals that it has been mentioned in these letters that in case of non-supply of the documents, the claim file will be closed as ‘No claim’. A close examination of these letters reveals that these letters were issued after the receipt letter dated 30.07.2019 Ex. R5 of the complainant and certain documents were requisitioned through these letters. Moreover, non-submission of the documents cannot be made a sole ground to close the claim of the complainant. The OPs are required to be more liberal in their approach without being too technical.

9.                In this regard, reference can be made to 2022(2) Apex Court Judgment 281 (SC) in case title Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non­submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control. In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.

In the given set of facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the complainant is directed to submit the requisite documents with the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter opposite parties shall settle and reimburse the claim of the complainant accordingly within 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to submit the requisite documents with the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite parties shall settle and pay the claim of the complainant accordingly within 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11               Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                        (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.10.2023.

Gobind Ram.