KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.450/11

JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT                          

The Divisional Manager,

Southern Railway

Divisional Office, Thycaud,                                --  APPELLANT

Thiruvananthapuram.

   (By Adv.S.Renganathan)

                   Vs.

Stalin Herald,

House No.153, Pallithura P.O,                           --  RESPONDENT

St.Xavier’s College (Via)

Thiruvananthapuram.

   (By Adv.Vazhuthacaud R.Narendran Nair)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/Railway Authorities in CC.92/05 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12%  as the price of the lost articles and Rs.5,000/- as costs.

          2. It is the case of the complainant who is working in the Army that he transported his household appliances from Surat Garh to Thiruvananthapuram though  the opposite party and that the same contained a brand new washing machine and  other articles.  Out of the 11packages entrusted he received only 7 packages.  The matter was reported to the railway authorities.  The estimate of loss is Rs.1,31,500/-.  The brand new washing  machine  and two  big boxes containing valuable household articles including  dinner sets etc; were missing.  There was no response from the opposite parties.

          3. In the version filed, the opposite parties/appellants have contended that although the complainant was directed to furnish the copy of Beejuck he did not do so.  The original partial delivery certificate was also not produced.  It is also contended that the Forum below has no jurisdiction as the jurisdiction is vested with the Railway Claims Tribunal established under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989.   It is also contended that the complainant had not declared the value of the consignment and   hence the liability of the opposite parties is confined to Rs.100/- per kg.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of  PW1, DW1 and Exts. P1 to P8

5. The Forum in the absence of documents produced to prove the price of the articles allowed only Rs.50,000/- instead of the amount claimed ie; Rs.1,31,500/-.  The only contention   raised by the counsel for the appellant is with respect to the lack of jurisdiction.  The counsel has also produced the unreported Judgment of the National Commission in Southern Railway and Ors. Vs. K.M.Chacko in   Revision Petition No.2387/10   wherein the National Commission  upheld the contention of the revision petitioner that as per Section 13 read with Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act  the Forum is not having jurisdiction. 

6. We find that it appears that the opposite parties have not pressed the question of maintainability before the Forum  although,  the same has been mentioned in the  version.  The opposite parties/appellants have cross examined the complainant and the opposite parties have also adduced oral evidence.  The above would indicate that the opposite parties have conceded the jurisdiction of the Forum.    The opposite parties ought to have pressed for an order as to the maintainability before the Forum.  In the absence of the same, it would not be proper to direct the complainant to approach another Forum for redressal of his grievances, after a full trial of the matter before the CDRF.

7. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of the Forum.  Hence, the appeal is dismissed.  The opposite parties will make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 15% from 24.11.11, the date of this order.

Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.

             JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT