Orissa

Rayagada

CC/271/2015

Shri Khagapati Bisoi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Parcel Supervisor - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Nrusingha Nath Panda

17 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 271/ 2015.                        Date.   17.8. 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Sri GadadharaSahu, B.Sc.                                                  President I/C.

Smt. Padmalaya Mishra, LL.B.                             Member

 

Sri Khagapati Bisoi, S/O: Bhubaneswari Bisoi, Po: Kakiriguma, Dist: Koraput,  State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Chief  Parcel Supervisor(Outward) , Raipur East Cost Railway, Raipur.
2. The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, East Cost Railway, D.R.M. office building,  Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.
3. The  Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Vizag, Andhrapradesh.
4. The Chief Claims Officer, East Cost Railway, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar.

                                                                             .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the O.Ps:-  Sri N.N.Panda,Advocate, Rayagada, Odisha.       

                                        J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of   price a sum of Rs.22,350/- towards missing of one bundle carton at Railway station, Singapur Road.  The brief facts of the case  is briefly summarized here under.

 

        That the  complainant  booked 9(nine) bundles of cartons from Railway booking office,  Raipur to  Singapur Road Railway station  on Dt. 9.4.2013 vide challan No. B-2763330. When the petitioner sent to Singapur Road Railway Station to take delivery of the 9(nine) bundles  of cartons, it was found that there were  only 8 (eight) bundles and one  bundle is missing.  Immediately, complainant  complained  the matter  before the  Station Master, Singapur Road Railway station in turn the  Station Master sent letter to the Chief Parcel Supervisor vide letter No.PPN/SPRD/09/04/13 to the Chief Parcel Supervisor (outward), Raipur on Dt.9.5.2013 informing him the matter  that out of 9 bundles sent from Raipur, they have received only 8 bundles of cartons and one bundle of carton is missing. The complainant  sent letters to the all O.Ps but nobody is responding. Hence this case. The hon’ble  forum direct the O.Ps to trace out the shortage   articles costing a sum of Rs. 22,350/- or direct the O.Ps to pay the cost of the articles and such other reliefs as the hon’ble  forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

 

On being noticed the O.Ps filed written version  through their learned counsel and  submitted that the above case is not maintainable  before the forum. The O.Ps further submitted that  the above action was held  not intentional  but i.e. circumstantial.  The averments made in the complaint petition are all not true and correct the complainant is called upon to  strict  proof of the same which are not admitted here under. Further the O.Ps have  mentioned  catena of judgements/ citations   in the written version  that  this forum  has no jurisdiction  to entertain complaints on account of deficiency in service. The O.Ps are .therefore prays the forum to dismiss the proceedings against the above named O.Ps  with cost.

 

The OPs  appeared and filed their counter.  Arguments of the  OPs and from the complainant heard and perused the record , documents , written version, citations  filed by the parties.

The learned counsels for both the parties made arguments touching the points both on the facts as well as on law.

 

                                      FINDINGS.

 

The learned counsel for the O.Ps vehemently argued  before the forum that the case is not maintainable before the forum as  alternative remedy  Under section-13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, 1987 is in force. 

 

        This forum  at  first  found  the principal question that arises for our  determination before going to the merits of the case in this  complaint petition  is whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ within the  definition of Section 2(i)(d)(ii) of the C.P.Act.  We  perused the  citation filed  by the learned counsel for the O.Ps.   it is held in  Revision  petition  No.125  of 1992  the  hon’ble National Commission observed “That the consumer forum has  no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint regarding deficiency in service arising from loss, destruction, damages, non delivery of  goods entrusted to railway administration for carriage”.

         

          Since the  Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has taken away and bars the jurisdiction of any other forum or tribunal to  deal with  such matters. Section-15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 completely bars the jurisdiction of the Quasi judicial bodies to try such matters as envisaged  in Section-13 of the said Act of which  claim for refund of  cost  towards missing of  one carton is a part.  It is under such exigencies even Section-3  of the C.P. Act is of no avail.

                                                                       

We are in completely agreed with the views expressed  by the  O.Ps that the complainant can not be regarded as a Consumer and the complaint  petition  filed  by  him does not raise a  Consumer Dispute as contemplated by the Consumer Protection  Act.  It cannot be said that the complainant  hired the services of the O.Ps for consideration, and we find  there is no deficiency  in service on the   part of  the  O.Ps.

 

Hence to meet the ends of the justice,  the following order is passed.

ORDER.

         

In the result with these observations, findings, discussion  the complaint petition is dismissed on contest

         

We appreciate  the zeal of the complainant  in filing  a complaint, but we are to regret that the complaint did not lie here and we  have got no option but to dismiss  the complaint petition.  However, the complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction i.e. Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. 

          Parties  are left to bear their own cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me.

Pronounced  on this        17^th.    day of  August,  2017.

 

                            

                                      Member.                                            President.