Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/378

SMT.REMA SINGH BAGHEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

SH.B.P. YADAV

28 Dec 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 31.01.2019 passed in C.C.No.36/2019 by District Forum, Bhopal)

 

SMT. RAMA SINGH BAGHEL.                                                                          …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, BHOPAL.                                                  …         RESPONDENT.                                      

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR     :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. MRS MONIKA MALIK                             :      MEMBER                                             

 

                                      O R D E R

28.12.2019

 

          Shri B. P. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.

                       

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (for short ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.36/2019 whereby the Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.

2.                     It is evident from the record that the incident of alleged theft occurred in midnight of 13^th-14^th December 2013 while the appellant was travelling as passenger in the train of respondent. Thereafter alleging deficiency in service in not taking proper care to her belongings by the Railways, the appellant had filed a complaint on 18.01.2019.  The Forum taking into consideration the fact that the alleged incident was of 13^th-14^th December 2013 and the complaint was filed on 18.01.2019 has dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation.

3.                     Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the intervening period, the appellant was contacting the respondents and had filed applications seeking information as to what happen regarding her complaint and as such there was no delay.

4.                     Having considered the aforesaid submissions we are of the view that the Forum has committed no error in dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation. The delay of about 5 years cannot be condoned on the ground that the complainant wrote letters to the respondent. It is well settled that writing of repeated letters/making of representation will not extend the period of limitation.

5.                     In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 

 

            (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)             (Dr. Monika Malik)    

                           President                                       Member