Date of filing : 12-04-2011
Date of order : 05-08-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 84/2011
Dated this, the 5th day of August 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Pramod,.K, S/o.Kunhiraman, } Complainant
“Rama Nilayam”, Menikottu, Uppilikai.Po,
Pudukai Vilage, Hosdurg Taluk.
(Adv.V.V.Raveendran, Hosdurg)
The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, } Opposite party
Southern Railway, DRMS office, Palakkad.
(Adv. M.Abdul Khader, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is that he booked 2 packages containing house hold articles from Jodhpur to Kannur through Railway Parcel Service. But opposite party delivered only one package and delivered a partial delivery letter to complainant. The missing package containing valuable articles worth `40,000/-. Though he caused a lawyer notice to opposite party calling upon them to deliver the parcel, not even a reply is sent. Hence the complaint.
2. According to opposite party out of the 2 baggages the complainant taken delivery of one cycle and the other box arrived the Kannur Railway Station with lock damaged condition. The opposite party was ready for arranging open delivery of the consignment and that was informed to the complainant. The complainant was reluctant to take delivery of the consignment. Therefore the said consignment was sent to Lost Property Office, Kozhikode for disposal in accordance to the rules. It is the further contention of opposite party that after the enactment of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 all the claims against the Railway Administration for loss, destruction damage and refund of fares or non-delivery of animals or goods freight or compensation for death or injury to passengers occurring as a result of Railway Accident are to be filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal as per Sec 13 and U/s.15 of the Act and no court or any other authority shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction.
3. After filing version the counsel for opposite party raised preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the complaint in view of Sec 13 & 15 of Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in RP 2387/2010 in the case of Southern Railway & Anr V. K.M.Chacko decided on 10-12-2010.
4. On going through the said decision it is found that the case on hand is fully covered by the above decision and hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.
Therefore the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. If the complainant chosen to proceed against the opposite party before the competent forum having jurisdiction then he can do so according to law and in that event he can claim the benefits of Sec.14 of Limitation Act to exclude the period spent for the proceedings before this Forum.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
