Date of Filing: 17/03/2015 Date of Final Order: 15/10/2015
The gist of the complaint as can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant, Ratan Ghosh being an businessman after purchasing of one tobacco product (50 Kg.) he booked the said product through railway parcel from Dinhata Railway Station (DHH) i.e. the O.P. No.1 to Diphu (DPU) at Assam on 31/07/2013 via Alipurduar Junction (APDJ) by depositing Rs.160/- as the said parcel charge. After that the Complainant reached at Diphu (Assam) for collecting the said parcel but the concern authority did not give the said parcel on account of non-availability. Thereafter the Complainant went to the office of the O.P. No.1 & 2 on several times for get back the aforesaid parcel but in vain.
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant suffering from mental pain & agony, pecuniary loss and unnecessary harassment. The O.Ps also adopted their deficiency in service and they are also liable to pay all damages and loss to the Complainant.
Finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed the instant Case No. CC/32/2015 with enclosed relevant documents before this Forum and prayed for direction to the O.Ps to pay (1) Rs.5,280/- as product value including parcel charge of Rs.160/-, (2) Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony, pecuniary loss and unnecessary harassment (3) Rs.15,000/- for deficiency in service and (4) Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P. No.1, Station Superintendent, Dinhata Railway Station and the O.P. No.2, Divisional Commercial Manager, N.F. Railway, Alipurduar Junction has contested the case by filing their written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the Complainant has no cause of action to being this case and the case is not tenable in law. The main allegation of the O.P. No.1 & 2, is that the Complainant is put to prove the fact that he is the actual claimant and to prove the documentary evidence that it was booked as stated by the Complainant. The O.P. No.1 & 2 also stated in their W/V that the statement regarding weight of the quantity of tobacco product and its value as stated by the Complainant are totally denied by the O.Ps.
The contention of the O.P. No.1 & 2 is that if the application be filed in proper Forum with documentary evidence proving the ownership of the article in the present case though not admitted the claimant can get the value of the article.
By putting all these, the O.P. No.1 & 2 stated in their W/V that there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Authority. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as demand by him.
Ultimately, this O.P. No.1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the case without any costs.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the Agents of both the parties at a length. Considered the decision cited by the parties.
Point No.1.
Evidently, on payment of Rs.160/- to Dinhata N.F. Railway as fare, the Complainant has sent 50 Kg. of tobacco to Diphu from Dinhata Railway Station by Railway.
So, the Complainant is consumer under Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of CP Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
It is the case of the Ops that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case. But we find that Tobacco, in question, was sent to Diphu from Dinhata Railway Station i.e. within jurisdiction of this Forum. So, it is clear that cause of action of this case has been arisen within jurisdiction of this Forum. More so, the O.P. No.1 has office within jurisdiction of the Forum.
It is also the case of the O.Ps that in view of Section 13 (1) Railway Tribunal Act, only said Tribnunal can decide such dispute.
But the O.Ps have failed to submit any paper to show that the jurisdiction of this Forum has been ousted by the provision of said Railway Tribunal Act.
So, it can be safely said that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
Total valuation of this case is Rs.40,280/- far less than maximum pecuniary limit of Rs.20,00,000/-.
Point No.3 & 4.
It appears from the Annexure “A” i.e. Challan dated 31/07/2013 issued by Gopal Majumder and Aminur Haque, Tobacco Merchants that the Complainant, Sri Ratan Ghosh purchased 50 Kgs. of tobacco product from them at a price of Rs.5,120/-.
So, ownership of said tobacco product sent through Railway has been established.
We further find from the Annexure “A-1” i.e. Receipt dated 31/07/2013 issued by Chief Commercial Clerk, Dinhata/N.F. Railway that the Complainant sent 50 Kg. of tobacco product to one R. Ghosai of Diphu on payment of fare of Rs.160/- through Railway and said booking was done at Dinhata Railway Station.
We find nothing disbelieve said Receipt issued by Govt. Company like Railway. The Complainant in his evidence stated that he went to receive the said parcel to Diphu (Assam) but the Railway Authority did not give the same parcel to him on account of non-availability.
It is the case of the O.Ps that there were no latches or negligence on the part of the O.Ps, Railway Authority. The O.Ps took appropriate care if anything be happened due to act of God.
The O.Ps in their W/V also admitted that the Complainant is entitled to get value of the goods, if he has been able to file document to prove ownership of the articles and the case be filed before proper Forum.
We further find that in their W/V, the O.Ps are quite silent on the point of fate of the article sent through Railway.
Considering overall matters into consideration and materials on record, we are constrained to hold that the Complainant has been able to prove his case by filing cogent documents that he has sent 50 Kgs. tobacco product to Diphu from Dinhata by Railway but the said article has not been reached to Diphu which amounts to deficiency in service by the Railway Authority.
At the time of Ld. Adv./Agent of the O.Ps submitted that Station Authority of Diphu has not been made party to the case. So the case is bad for defect of parties.
But we find that Divisional Commercial Manager, N.F. Railway has been made party to the case. So Station Authority of every station is not necessary party to the case.
Ultimately, we are constrained to hold that the present case is liable to be allowed and the O.Ps, Railway Authorities are liable to pay Rs.5,280/- as cost of tobacco product and fare charge with compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. CC/32/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest with costs of Rs.2,000/- against the O.P. No.2, Divisional Commercial Manager, N.F. Railway, Alipurduar Junction and in Ex-parte against the O.P. No.1, Station Superintendent, Dinhata Railway Station without any costs.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs.5,280/- as cost of tobacco product and fare charge with compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant, Ratan Ghosh for mental pain & agony, pecuniary loss and unnecessary harassment for deficiency in service. The ordered amount shall pay jointly and/or severally to the Complainant within 45 days failure of which the O.P shall pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied to the parties by hand/Registered post, free of cost with A/D.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
