BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.411 of 2017

Date of Instt. 30.10.2017

Date of Decision: 13.06.2018

Suraj Bhan Pandey Age 29 Years, S/o Sheer Bahadur Pandey, H. No.44, Gali No.1, Avtar Nagar, Jalandhar City. Mobile No.98886-53117.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Station Master, Railway Station, Jalandhar.

2. Station Master, Railway Station, Sultanpur Jassan (UP).

3. The Chief Claim Officer, Railway Department, Station Building, Varanasi (UP).

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh. G. S. Kahlon, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 to 3. (Defence Struck Off)

Order

Harvimal Dogra (Member)

1. This complaint is presented by the complainant Suraj Bhan Pandey under 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986' against the OPs, on the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with the prayer that the OPs may be directed to trace and deliver the Engine to the complainant at the desired destination (Sultanpur, UP) and in the alternative to give the cost of Engine amounting to Rs.18,500/- alongwith fare charges Rs.1190/- + Loading charges Rs.300/- and further to pay Rs.3300/- as cost of litigation and give Rs.70,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant booked an Engine on 19.11.2017 having weight 118 KGS with OP No.1 for carrying it from Jalandhar to Sultanpur (UP). The OP No.1 received a sum of Rs.1190/- as fare charges and also Rs.300/- for loading the said engine. The OP No.1 assured the complainant that the above said engine would be conveyed to Sultanpur (UP) on next day from the date of booking. The complainant purchased his own ticket dated 19.11.2016 for Rs.235/- from OP No.1 for going to Sultanpur (UP). The complainant reached Sultanpur (UP) on the same date and he approached OP No.2 to take the delivery of his engine booked with OP No.1. The OP No.2 told the complainant that the said engine has not reached OP No.2. When enquired, the OP No.2 told the complainant that the said Engine was loaded on 21.11.2016, so, it would reach the OP No.2 on 22.11.2016. The complainant again went to OP No.2 on 22.11.2016 to take delivery of the said engine, but the OP No.2 told the complainant that the delivery of Engine has not reached with OP No.2 and directed the complainant to come after 15 days. After the lapse of 15 days, the complainant again went to take the delivery of the engine, but the OP No.2 again directed him to come after one month as the said engine has not reached OP No.2. The complainant went to OP No.2 after one month, but the same reply was given to him by the OP No.2. The OP No.2 directed the complainant to enquire about the engine from OP No.3 i.e. their Lucknow Office. The OP No.3 also showed their inability and said that they know nothing about the said engine. The complainant got published a news in the News Paper “Dainik Bhaskar” that the said Engine booked with OP No.1 had not reached the destination after the lapse of eight months and the complainant is wandering here and there in search of his engine. The complainant had visited the office of OPs several times, but he was unable to know the where abouts of the engine. According to the complainant, the value of the said engine was Rs.18,500/- and the engine was to be used for drawing the water from the earth for the cultivation purpose, but due to the non delivery of the said engine, the complainant and his family has been deprived off the use of the said engine and thus, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental tension, harassment and financial loss. Hence, the present complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel Sh. G. S. Kahlon, Adv, who filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the OP No.1 and Memo of Appearance on behalf of OP No.2 and 3. Despite several opportunities, the counsel for the OP No.1 to 3 did not file Power of Attorney and Written Statement and as such, the defence of OP No.1 to 3 was struck off on 29.01.2018.

4. In order to prove his claim, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

5. We have examined the entire material on record and have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us by the complainant.

6. The facts and circumstances of the case emerged itself clearly that the complainant approached to OP No.1 on 19.11.2016 for sending an engine from Jalandhar to Sultanpur (UP). A sum of Rs.1190/- was received by OP No.1 as fare charges, vide receipt Ex.C1. The OP No.1 also received Rs.300/- for loading charges of the said engine.

7. The OP No.1 assured the complainant that the above said engine would reach its destination i.e. Sultanpur (UP) on next day of booking. The complainant also reached at Sultanpur (UP) on the same day to take the delivery of the said engine. When the complainant reached Sultanpur (UP), he approached the OP No.2 to take the delivery of the engine, but OP No.2 told the complainant that the engine has not reached its destination. The complainant number of times made enquiries, but the OP No.2 showed their inability to make the delivery of the said engine as the engine never reached with OP No.2. The complainant also got published a news in the News Paper 'Dainik Bhaskar', which is Ex.C-3 that the engine booked with OP No.1 has not reached with OP No.2 even after the lapse of eight months. The complainant is running here and there in search of said engine.

8. After considering the whole case, it has become crystal clear that the engine might have lost in the transit and as such, the engine never reached to its destination i.e. Sultanpur (UP) and it was never delivered to the complainant. The Railway Administration is held responsible for loss, destruction, damage and for non-delivery of the engine carried by railways. Moreover, the OPs have failed to come forward and rebut the evidence led by the complainant. The OPs have further failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the said non-delivery of the engine was not on account of willful act or default on the part of its employee. So, this Forum held that there is a deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs. So, the Railway Authorities are made liable to make good the loss caused by them. So, the directions are given to the OPs to pay the cost of the engine i.e. Rs.18,500/-. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within the period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay 12% interest on the total amount from the date of filing complaint, till its realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

13.06.2018 Member President