Andhra Pradesh
Visakhapatnam-II
CC/156/2011
Smt. Molleti Annapurna - Complainant(s)
Versus
South Central Railway - Opp.Party(s)
C.R. Vasantha Kumar
05 Jun 2015
ORDER
Date of Registration of the Complaint:25-04.2011
Date of Order:05-06-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT
VISAKHAPATNAM
P r e s e n t:
1. Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,
President
2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,
Lady Member
3. Sri C.V. Rao, M.A., B.L.,
Male Member
Friday, the 5th day of June 2015.
CONSUMER CASE No.156/2011
Between:-
Smt. Molleti Annapurna, W/o Varaha
Nokayya Naidu, Hindu, aged 33 years,
House Wife, residing at D. No. 13-155,
R.R.V. Puram (P.O), Visakhapatnam-29.
….. Complainant
And:-
South Central Railway, represented by its
General Manager, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
… Opposite Party
This case coming on 29.05.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Sri C.R. Vasantha Kumar, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri K. Dakshina Murthy Advocate for the Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)
1. This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party directing her to pay the value of lost gold ornaments weighing 33 tulas as on the date of payment, to pay for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) and costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and such other relief or reliefs.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Opposite Party is dealing in goods and passenger rail services and she availed the service of the Opposite Party for her travel along with her children from Secunderabad to Visakhapatnam by IInd Air Condition Coach in Godavari express bearing No. 2728 on 20.04.2009 by paying consideration of Rs.2,132/- and her minor boy on 20.03.2009 and the Opposite Party provided the berths in A-2 Coach with berth Nos.29 & 30 vide PNR No. 1141459868 with transaction ID0102534865. The Complainant’s husband is working in Gulf as Civil Engineer and she returned from Dubai on 19.04.2009 and in order to visit her parent’s house at Visakhapatnam, she boarded the train on the scheduled date and fastened all her luggage under the seats with chain duly securing the same in all respects. She had in her luggage golden ornaments in four jewel boxes containing 1) 1 gold necklace weighing 5 tulas, 2) 4 gold bangles weighing 6 tulas, 3) 2 gold bangles weighing 3 ½ tulas, 4) 1 gold bangles weighing 1 ½ tulas, 5) one gold bangle weighing 2 ½ tulas, 6) 1 gold bangle weighing 1 ½ tulas, 7) 1 small necklace weighing 1 ½ tulas, 8) one black beads gold chain weighing 2 ½ tulas, 9) 2 small chains weighing ½ tula and ¾ tula, 10) 5 sets of ear rings weighing about 3 tulas, 11) 3 gold rings weighing about 1 ½ tulas, 12) 1 Papidi chain weighing about ¾ tula and 13) 2 baby bangles weighing about 2 tulas, in all approximately 33 tulas of KDM gold worth of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs only) which is inclusive of the cost of manufacture.
3. That she woke up to the tea vendor’s noise enquired with him about the place where the train is at present to which she was informed that the train is about to reach Duvvada Railway Station and she has to alight at Visakhapatnam, she got herself ready to remove the chains attached to the luggages and she astonishment found that one of her suitcase lock is found broken and when she opened the suit case and found that the jewels kept in the four jewel boxes in suit case containing the above descriptive jewel items were found missing in between Vijayawada and Duvvada Stations and she was shell shocked and after reaching Visakhapatnam, she gave a complaint Government Railway Police who registered the case vide F.I.R. No. 44/2009 dated 21.04.2009 have mentioned the weight of the lost items, simply got mentioned the value of the items as Rs.1,50,000/-/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only). She approached the Government Railway Police, Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada & Hyderabad on number of occasions about the loss of gold ornaments. She lost her belongings solely on account of the negligence of the Opposite Party in not providing proper security to check on those persons who enters the reserved compartments without any valid reserved tickets and watch their movements while boarding and alighting the compartment and even though the attenders and ticket examiners were provided in the air condition coaches, but either on account of their casual approach in guarding the movements of the intruders or their collusion with the unsocial elements, she lost the jewels in the suit case.
4. That she was informed by the Railway Police that they have identified the culprit and informed her that the GRPF has nabbed the culprit and recovered gold ornaments weighting 7 ½ tulas of gold and that they could not recover the other gold items around 25 ½ tulas of gold and that the accused was also produced before the Railway Court at Visakhapatnam. The Opposite Party is solely liable to compensate is her as the same is resulted solely due to the latches on the part of the Opposite Party in providing requisite services to the reserved passengers. On account of the failure of the Opposite Party men manning the coaches effectively or due to their collusion with the criminals, she lost her valuables and her matrimonial life was also severely affected. Hence, this Complaint.
5. The case of the Opposite Party denying the material averments of the Complainant is that the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable under laws. The Complainant is put to strict proof that she boarded the train with such quantify of gold, which was cleared by custom authorities. In fact, Railway Administration did not know the contents of her luggage as the same was not booked with Railways. The Railway Claims Tribunal alone got jurisdiction and this Forum has no jurisdiction to file this complaint. The complaint is filed without impleading Union of India, therefore, this complaint is bad for non-joinder of proper authorities. The Complainant was filed impleading the General Manager only without impleading any concerned authority under whose control, actual sale of tickets was happened. The Railway offered carriage of the passenger under the provisions of the Railway Act, 1989 and Coaching Tariff in force against collection of fare. There is no deficiency of service during the course of such carriage.
6. That the sale ticket was happened in terms of provisions of coach tariff. As regards carriage of luggage in Air Conditioned Coach, Rule No.506.1 of Indian Railway Coaching Tariff No.26 Part-I, (Volume-I) stated that “passengers were required to take into a carriage only such small articles of personnel luggage as are require that their own use on the journey and can be placed in the carriage without inconveniencing other passengers”. And all articles taken into carriage are carried at the risk of the owners. Thus the passengers are expected to carry only small articles for their own use on journey and carriage of luggage in the compartment is at their risk. Thus, Railway is no way responsible for any loss happened for the said un-booked luggage.
7. As per annexure to FIR, the luggage was admittedly secured at two places i.e., beneath berth No.29 and also beneath opposite 4 berth bay i.e., berth No.25 to 28 and gold ornaments missed from the luggage reportedly secured under berth No.25 to 28. Hence, it is quite clear that the Complainant did not take precautions in protecting her luggage and gave room for theft when she admittedly travelled on berth No.29.
8. It is not a case of theft of luggage and it is case of alleged theft of ornaments found missing in the zip bag and the said zip bag which was admittedly carried with the Complainant. As a passenger amenity, Railway made a provision beneath the berths to secure personnel luggage of the passengers by providing hooks/chains. It is wonder why she was not wake up when the lock was found broken; Railway’s liability arises only in case of booked luggage in terms of Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1998. Hence, railway is not responsible for loss of contents of luggage. The Railways made frequent announcements though public address systems as well as by exhibiting posters duly alerting the travelling public by stating that it is their responsibility in regard to safety of their personal belongings and luggage during the travel. The Complainant did not inform breaking of lock and missing of gold ornaments on duty Coach Conductor namely Sri G. Venkata Ramji while he was on train. She informed missing of ornaments on Station platform leading to taking her to police station for loading of theft complaint. The said coach conductor categorically stated that if she had told him in the coach, he would have went to herself seat and make any formal enquiry with the co-passengers about alleged theft, and there is no unauthorized passenger in the coach and the doors of the coach are in the closed condition only.
9. That while selling ticket, the Railway Administration never promised safety of passenger luggage as its responsibility. The Railway is a vast organization providing cheap transportation with very meager fare and as such, it difficult task for any government organization for deploying security personnel for security of luggage. The Complainant is careless and negligent and not secured the luggage containing valuables beneath her berth No.29, for all these reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. To prove the case on behalf of the Complainant, the Complainant herself filed her evidence affidavit and got marked as Exs.A1 to A16. On the other hand, on behalf of the Opposite Party, his filed his evidence affidavit and additional affidavit and got marked as Exs.B1 to B11.
11. Ex.A1 is the photo copy of Electronic Reservation Slip PNR No.1141459868 dated 20.04.2009. Ex.A2 is the First Information Report with complaint issued by (SHO) Govt. Railway Police, Visakhapatnam dated 21.04.2009. Ex.A3 is the photo copy of letter addressed by the Complainant to the Superintendent of Railway Police, Vijayawada on 23.05.2009. Ex.A4 is the photo copy of letter addressed by Complainant to the Deputy Superintendent of Railways Police, Visakhapatnam dated 23.05.2009. Ex.A5 photo copy of letter addressed by the Complainant to the Superintendent of Railways Police, Vijayawada dated 18.06.2009. Ex.A6 is the photo copy of letter addressed by the Complainant to the Inspector of General Railways Police, S.C. Railways, Hyderabad dated 18.06.2009. Ex.A7 is the photo copy of letter addressed by the Complainant to the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. Ex.A8 is the photo copy of Sales Invoice for an amount of Rs.5,280/- issued by Joyalukkas Jewellery dated on 15.06.2005. Ex.A9 is the photo copy of Sales Invoice for an amount of Rs.475/- issued by the Joyalukkas Jewellery dated 24.06.2005. Ex.A10 is the photo copy of Sale Invoice for an amount of Rs.3,420/- issued by the Joyaalukkas dated 18.10.2007. Ex.A11is the photo copy of Invoice an amount of Rs.10,030/- issued by the Joyalukkas Jewellery dated 14.11.2008. Ex.A12 is the photo copy of Invoice for an amount of Rs.225/- issued by the Sky Jewellery dated 05.06.2008. Ex.A13 is the photo copy of Invoice an amount of Rs.354/- issued by the Joyalukkas Jewellery dated .06.2008. Ex.A14 is the photo copy of Invoice an amount of Rs.1,310/- issued by the Sky Jewellery dated 05.06.2008. Ex.A15 is the photo copy of Invoice an amount of Rs.7,470/- issued by the Sky Jewellery dated 23.10.2008. Ex.A16 is the photo copy of Invoice for an amount of Rs.6,500/- issued by the al.haseena Jewellers dated 27.11.2008.
12. Ex.B1is the attested copy of Extract of Rules 506.1 of Coaching Tariff No.26 Part-1 (Volume-1). Ex.B2 is the attested copy of First Information Report under Crime No.44/09 IPC 379 dated 21.04.2009. Ex.B3 is the attested copy of Mediator Report dated 30.10.2010. Ex.B4 attested copy of letter addressed by the Complainant to the Inspector of Railway Police, Visakhapatnam dated 21.04.2009. Ex.B5 is the attested copy of Identification Report dated 02.10.2010. Ex.B6 is the attested copy of letter issued by V. Pattabhi Ram, Corporator, 8th Ward, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation dated 22.08.2011. Ex.B7 is the attested copy of Charge Sheet in CC No.5/2011 filed by the (S.H.O) Inspector of Railways Police, Visakhapatnam dated 17.01.2011. Ex.B8 is the attested copy of Petition Crl.M.P 570/2011 in CC 5/2011 under Sec.457 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Complainant dated 21.10.2011. Ex.B9 is the attested copy of Calendar and Judgment pronounced by II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Visakhapatnam dated 27.09.2011. Ex.B10 is the attested copy of Judgment pronounced by the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Visakhapatnam dated 27.09.2011. Ex.B11 is the attested copy of deposition PW1 to PW5 in CC 5/2011 pronounced by the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railway, Visakhapatnam dated 15.09.2011.
13. Both parties filed their respective written arguments.
14. Heard oral arguments from both sides.
15. Now the point that arises for determination is:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?
16. As seen from record, it is an undisputed fact that the Complainant booked tickets for her travel along with her children from Secunderabad to Visakhapatnam by 2nd Air Condition Coach in Godavari Express bearing Train No.2728 on 20.04.2009 and the Opposite Party provided the berths in A-2 coach, with berth numbers 29 & 30, vide PNR No.1141459868 with transaction ID0102534865. It is also not indispute that on 20.03.2009 in the early hours while the train was morning in between Secunderabad to Visakhapatnam, she lost her baggage articles kept in a suit case and after reaching Visakhapatnam, she gave the complaint to Government Railway Police duly mentioned the lost jewels and weight of all the items and on that police registered the First Information Report vide F.I.R. No.44/2009 dated 21.04.2009, but they have mentioned the weight of the lost items as Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only).
17. The first contention of the Opposite Party is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint Section-11 of the Consumers Protection Act has no jurisdiction on the place where the cause of action arises. When he Complainant has purchased the tickets at Secunderabad undoubtedly the cause of action arose there only. It is equally true that she could file a complaint either at Secunderabad or the place where she had lost the articles. All these conditions have no place when admittedly the Opposite Party has sold the tickets allotted the berths to the Complainant at Secunderabad necessarily it has jurisdiction. Filing a complaint at the place where the passengers lost their articles are luggage would be in practicable. The parties cannot go to faraway places to prosecute the complaint at the same time for recovery of small amounts. The very purpose would be defeated as they have spent more amounts then what they had lost. The price difference between the un-reserved ticket and reserved ticket is quiet high and the travelling public who by a reserved ticket is expected that they can enjoy the train journey with a certain minimum amount of security and safety.
18. It is held in 1(2003 CPJ 196 (NC) Section-15 of the Railway Act, bars of the jurisdiction of the other courts as regards claims following under Section-13 of the Act. The luggage of Secftion-13 dealing with the Jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal is explained and unambiguous and since the present case of the loss of luggage is not covered by Section-13. The question of any barring of the jurisdiction of general courts under Section-15 of RCT Act does not arise.
19. The National Commission in the following cases that failure to check entry of unauthorized person in a reserved compartment was negligence and therefore deficiency in service, Union of India Vs Monoj H. Pathak II (1996) CPJ 31 (NC). A Railway passenger has a right to have his person and property protected by railways during the journey. The question of passenger’s right and liability of railways in such events is settled once for all by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Devi M. Dhanwatay Vs Union of India II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 227.
It is held in II (2003) CPJ 28 Suitcase stolen in night while train was in motion-Difficult to ascertain where cause of action arose-Complaint can be filed in any Forum enroute.
The next contention of the Opposite Party is that by virtue of Section-100 of Railway Act, Administration is not liable for loss of any luggage. There is no negligence on its part and pray for dismissal of the complaint.
It is held in IV (2005 CPJ 57 (NC) Railway Administration can be held responsible provided that there is negligence on the part of the railways are any of its servants provided, ofcourse, that the passenger himself has taken reasons care of his personnel baggage has expected of a prudent person.
It is further held in I (2004) CPJ 40 (NC). The Railways are responsible to care and protect the passengers in reserved compartment. Railways-Responsibility as carrier of luggage-Reserved compartment not protected from intruders-Theft occurred-Deficiency in service proved by evidence of the Complainant and co-passengers.
It is further held in I (2003) CPJ 196 (NC) Railways-Deficiency in service-Luggage stolen from reserved compartment-TTE responsible to restrain entry of intruders in reserved compartment, not available at the time of theft, failed to perform duties-Gross dereliction of duty, deficiency in service proved the Complainant to be awarded by way of compensation.
It is held in I (2003 CPJ 72 (NC) Luggage stolen from reserved compartment in night Railway Administration responsible to prevent unauthorized entry-Basic safety and security precautions not taken by staff-Complainant entitled for compensation.
It is further held in III (2012) CPJ 27 Failure to check entry of unauthorized person in reserved compartment was negligence-Railway passenger has right to have his person and property protected by railways during journey-When the Complainant gave report to railway police it did not try to find out as to what happened to articles-compensation to be awarded loss of value of goods.
20. The crux of the argument of the Opposite Party is that Railways cannot accept any responsibility for the luggage carried by the passenger along with him without booking the same with the Railways Authorities. It is also the further case of the Opposite Party that the passengers himselfs should be vigilant enough to prevent any loss of his luggage. Certain provisions of the Railways Act and Rules have been referred to in support of this contention of the Opposite Party. However, the ruling of the National Commission as cited by the Complainant has clearly taken the stand that there is a responsibility cast on the T.T.E. attached to the coach to be very vigilant about anyone other than the reserved ticket holders entering the compartment to such an extent that he is required to prevent even a relation of the passenger from entering a coach. The T.T.E. is particularly required to take special care in the night and ensure that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorized persons do not enter the coach. The T.T.E. shall also ensure that the end-doors of a coach are kept locked between 22.00 hours and 6.00 hours to prevent outsiders from entering the coach. The Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid ruling concluded that the T.T.E. failed in the performance of his duty which resulted in the incident of theft. We find that the facts in the case before the Hon’ble National Commission and the facts of the present matter before us are almost similar and hence the ruling of the Hon’ble National Commission as discussed above is very much applicable to the present matter also.
21. The Apex Court further held that a complaint like the present one can be entertained by the Consumer Courts in terms of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act regardless of the relevant provision of the Railways Act. In regard to the point made by the Opposite Party that in terms of Section-15 and Section-13 of the Railways Act, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court is ousted in as much as any claims are to be adjudicated by the Railway Claims Tribunal, The Hon’ble National Commission has held that the loss of luggage is not covered by Section -13 and as such Section -15 which bars the jurisdiction of the other Courts relating to claims falling under Section-13 has no applicability.
22. It is held in Union India Monoj H. Pathak II (1996) CPJ 31 (NC). That it is not indispute that the Complainant had higher services of the Railway Administration for consideration and if there is any negligence are deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration, it is a Consumer Dispute within scope and ambit of Section-21 D of the Act. The Complainant was entitled to be carried safety for the train up to its distinction for the reserved the Compartment etc.
23. On the basis of the above discussion, we are of the opinion, that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties/appellant in as much as they caution to prevent the entry of unauthorized person/persons in the reserved AC-2 Tier Coach. Godavari Express which the Complainant was travelling is a prestigious train and it is certainly not too much to expect that the Railway Authorities would take utmost care to ensure the safety of the passengers and their luggage travelling in a reserved 2-Tier AC Coach of that train. However, in the present case the Opposite Party failed to provide this service which was very much expected of them, as a result of which the Complainant lost her suitcase containing valuables, apparently taken away by some unauthorized persons entering the compartment.
24. In regard to the valuation of the contents of the suitcase we find that the Complainant has not adduced any independent evidence apart from the affidavit sworn by her. In this regard the learned counsel for the Opposite Party has submitted that a mere affidavit would not serve the purpose and there must be some independent evidence in support of the statement of the Complainant. We find some substance in the submission of the Complainant. As a matter of fact we find it a little difficult to accept the version of the Complainant in toto regarding the contents of the suitcase. Had the suitcase really contained so many valuable items as stated by the Complainant. It is not unreasonable to expect the passenger to have been more vigilant and careful about his valuable luggage. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the version of the Complainant that the valuation of the stolen suitcase was really weighing 33 tulas of gold. Of course, some gold was already recovered by the police in further investigation. As already stated no direct evidence is forthcoming from the Complainant in this regard and in the absence of such evidence we have no other alternative but to assess the amount in a somewhat adhoc manner. In our opinion, the ends of justice will be met if the compensation amount for the stolen suitcase as also for harassment and mental agony is restricted to Rs.1,00,000/- besides cost of Rs.5,000/-.
25. Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.,5,00,000/- is to be considered. It appears as seen from the evidence of PW-1 that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Party and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is un-dispute fact that the Opposite Party did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant. Naturally that made have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain. In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation. But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 1,00,000/- would serve the ends of justice. We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000 /-, in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.
26. Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation. The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum had his claim for pay the value of lost gold ornaments weighting 33 tulas as on the date of payment or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Party within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for claims for cost deserves to be allowed. In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable. Accordingly costs are awarded.
27. In the result, this Complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs to the Complainant and the rest of the reliefs claimed are hereby dismissed. Time for compliance, one month.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 5th day of June, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Male Member Lady Member President
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For the Complainant:-
NO. | DATE | DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS | REMARKS |
Ex.A01 | 20.04.2009 | Electronic Reservation Slip PNR No.1141459868 | Photo copy |
Ex.A02 | 21.04.2009 | First Information Report with complaint issued by (SHO_ Govt. Railway Police VSP | Original |
Ex.A03 | 23.05.2009 | Letter addressed by the Complainant to the Superintendent of Railway Police, Vijayawada | Photo copy |
Ex.A04 | 23.05.2009 | Letter addressed by the Complainant to the Deputy Superintendent of Railways Police, VSP | Photo copy |
Ex.A05 | 18.06.2009 | Letter addressed by the Complainant to the Superintendent of Railways Police, Vijayawada | Photo copy |
Ex.A06 | 18.06.2009 | Letter addressed by the Complainant to the Inspector of General Railways Police, S.C. Railways, Hyderabad | Photo copy |
Ex.A07 |
| Letter addressed by the Complainant to the General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabd | Photo copy |
Ex.A08 | 15.06.2005 | Sales Invoice for an amount of Rs.5,280/- issued by Joyalukkas Jewellery | Photo copy |
Ex.A09 | 24.06.2005 | Sales Invoice for an amount of Rs.475/- issued by the Joyalukkas Jewellery | Photo copy |
Ex.A10 | 18.10.2007 | Sales Invoice for an amount of Rs.3,420/- issued by the Joyaalukkas | Photo copy |
Ex.A11 | 14.11.2008 | Invoice an amount of Rs.10,030/- issued by the Joyalukkas Jewellery | Photo copy |
Ex.A12 | 05.06.2008 | Invoice for an amount of Rs.225/- issued by the Sky Jewellery . | Photo copy |
Ex.A13 | .06.2008 | Invoice an amount of Rs.354/- issued by the Joyalukkas Jewellery. | Photo copy |
Ex.A14 | 05.06.2008 | Invoice an amount of Rs.1,310/- issued by the Sky Jewellery | Photo copy |
Ex.A15 | 23.10.2008 | Invoice an amount of Rs.7,470/- issued by the Sky Jewellery | Photo copy |
Ex.A16 | 27.11.2008 | Invoice for an amount of Rs.6,500/- issued by the al.haseena Jewellers | Photo copy |
For the Opposite Party:-
NO. | DATE | DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS | REMARKS |
Ex.B01 |
| Extract of Rules 506.1 of Coaching Tariff No.26 Part-1 (Volume-1) | Attested copy |
Ex.B02 | 21.04.2009 | First Information Report under Crime No.44/09 IPC 379 | Attested copy |
Ex.B03 | 30.10.2010 | Mediator Report | Attested copy |
Ex.B04 | 21.04.2009 | Letter addressed by the Complainant to the Inspector of Railway Police, VSP | Attested copy |
Ex.B05 | 02.10.2010 | Identification Report | Attested copy |
Ex.B06 | 22.08.2011 | Letter issued by V. Pattabhi Ram, Corporator, 8th Ward, VMC | Attested copy |
Ex.B07 | 17.01.2011 | Charge Sheet in CC No.5/2011 filed by the (S.H.O), Inspector of Railways Police, VSP | Attested copy |
Ex.B08 | 21.10.2011 | Petition Crl.M.P. 570/2011 in CC 5/2011 Under Sec.457 of Cr..P.C filed by the Complainant | Attested copy |
Ex.B09 | 27.09.2011 | Calendar and Judgment pronounced by II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, VSP | Attested copy |
Ex.B10 | 27.09.2011 | Judgment pronounced by the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, VSP | Attested copy |
Ex.B11 | 15.09.2011 | Deposition PW1 to PW5 in CC 5/2011 pronounced by the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railway,. VSP | Attested copy |
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Male Member Lady Member President
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.