DISTRICT CONSUMER D REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 11th day of March 2019
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member Date of filing: 22/11/2017
CC/169/2017
Rahul.K,
S/o.Ramadas(late)
‘Roshini Nivas’, Pangal,
Pudupariyaram, Palakkad Taluk. - Complainant
Palakkad District.
(By Advs.C.Sreekumar and Gangadharan.B)
Vs
The Divisional Railway Manager, - Opposite Party
Southern Railway Divisional Office,
Railway Colony, Palakkad – 678 009.
(Adv.T.R.Rajagopalan)
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
The case of the complainant is briefly described as follows.
On 13.08.2017 the complainant booked a parcel through the opposite party for consignment of goods in a poly yop propylene bag. The poly bag consists of 42 nos. of sports jersey, 10 nos. of sports jersey(lower), 32 nos. of sports shorts and 22 nos. of sports jersey weighing 10 Kgs., with a total value of Rs.36,500/-. The consignment was booked by the complainant from Olavakkode Railway Parcel Office on 13.08.2017 vide receipt No.103470 for transporting to Mangalapuram railway station, Karnataka by train No.22637 which is to be despatched on 14.08.2017. The consignee was Mr.Saif, Lakshmi Narayan complex, GHS Mangalore for Fifa Sports 18, 19 Essel Wilcon, 1st Floor, above Radha Medical Bendoorwell circle, Kankenady, Mangalore, Karnataka. Complainant paid Rs.33/- as total consignment charges and the total value of goods was Rs.36,500/-. According to the complainant this consignment was not delivered to the destination on 14.08.2017, which was informed by the consignee, the Fifa Sports, Mangalapuram, Karnataka. The complainant informed the opposite party about the non delivery of the consignment but the office bearers of the opposite party were not ready to help the complainant and informed the complainant that consignment may have been lost or misdirected elsewhere during transit and that they are not liable for the same and the opposite party failed to deliver the same to the consignee in time. The complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 11.09.2017 stating non delivery of goods to the consignee which opposite party received on 13.09.2017, but the opposite party neither replied to the lawyer notice nor took any steps to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him at the hands of the opposite party. The complainant suffered much hardship, mental agony, financial loss and inconvenience due to the negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for the mental agony, hardship and inconvenience caused to the complainant, to pay him Rs.36,500/- towards the value of goods lost and Rs.33/- by way of consignment charges.
Hence complainant prays that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay a total amount of Rs.1,36,533/- with 18% interest to the complainant as compensation, to allow cost of the complaint and grand such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit to grand.
The complaint was admitted and opposite party was issued a notice to enter appearance and file version. In the version filed, the opposite party denies all the allegations in the complaint except those expressly admitted. According to this opposite party the complaint is defective for not impleading the Union of India representing the Southern Railway General Manager. This opposite party affirms that complainant had booked the consignment on 13.08.2017 but denies the allegation as incorrect that the consignment was not delivered. Actually the parcel was delivered on 03.09.2017 to one Mr.Saif as contended by this opposite party as per the copy of the delivery receipt produced. The letter dated 30.11.2017 from the Chief Parcel Supervisor, Mangalore is also produced by this opposite party. This opposite party further submits that at the time of receiving the complaint from the complainant, this fact was not known to the opposite party and hence no reply was sent to the notice dated 11.09.2017. According to this opposite party since the consignment was already delivered to the consignee, complainant cannot claim any damages on the value of the consignment. Further there is also no deficiency on the part of this opposite party. Hence this opposite party prays to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss this complaint with cost.
Complainant filed affidavit, opposite party also filed affidavit of witness, witness was examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked from the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Both complainant and the opposite party were heard.
The following issues are considered in this case.
1. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice on the side of the opposite party?
2. If so, the relief and cost entitled to by the complainant?
Issues 1 & 2 in detail
Ext.A1 to A4 are produced before this Forum by the complainant in support of his pleadings. Ext.A1(photo copy of receipt No.103470 issued to the complainant) shows transporting of the consignment to Mangalapuram Railway Station, Karnataka through train No.22637 and transport charges paid was Rs.33/-. Ext.A2 clarifies that a lawyer notice to the opposite party was caused to be sent on 11.09.2017 stating non delivery of goods to the consignee; this notice also stated that the said consignment was either lost or misdirected elsewhere during transit and the total value of goods consigned was Rs.36,500/-. Ext.A3 is the postal receipt(original) to prove sending of the lawyer notice to the opposite party by the complainant by registered post with A/D. Ext.A4 is an acknowledgment card sent by the opposite party to the complainant’s counsel to prove the receipt of the lawyer notice on 13.09.2017 by the opposite party. Three documents are produced by the opposite party to prove their contentions namely Ext.B1, Ext.B2 and Ext.B3. Ext.B1 is the delivery report 068 No.103470 issued by the opposite party to the complainant stating by train No.22637 consignment was sent by the complainant to the opposite party and total charges paid was Rs.33/-. Ext.B2 is a letter dated 30.11.2017 sent by Chief Parcel Supervisor, Southern Railway Palakkad Junction which states that the consigner has booked on 13.08.2017 vide PWB No.103470 one poly bag T-Shirt for sending to the consignee and Rs.33/- was collected as train charges for sending the consignment and also mentioned that the said poly bundle booked on 13.08.2017 was loaded on the same day(13.08.2017) by 22637 FSLR 93839 which also shows loading summery of 22637 on 13.08.2017 as follows:
103466 – PGT- CLT 3 TC Box fish 2.40 – 263
103470 - PGT–MAG 1 P/b 0.10 - 33
4 2.50
Ext.B3 is a letter from Chief Parcel Supervisor/MAQ dated 28.11.2017 to the DCM/PGT informing the latter that one plastic bundle booked vide PWB No.103470 dated 13.08.2017 Ex-PGT-MAQ was received on 31.08.2017 by train No.16604 and the same was delivered to Mr.M.N.Saif on 03.09.2017 vide PRO No.532 in the local delivery register enclosing a photo copy of RR which shows vehicle No. as 22637 and total charges paid as Rs.33/-.
From the affidavits and documentary evidences submitted by both the parties we understand that on 13.08.2017 the complainant booked a consignment from Olavakkode Railway Parcel Office for transporting to Mangalapuram Railway Station, Karnataka by train No.22637 which is also admitted by the opposite party. Although the consignment was loaded on 13.08.2017 by train No.22637 FSLR 93839 which is seen shown in the loading summery of vehicle No.22637 of 13.08.2017, as per letter from Chief Parcel Supervisor, Mangalore dated 28.11.2017 to the DCM/PGT, the booked consignment vide PWB No.103470 dated 13.08.2017 EX-PGT-MAQ was received on 31.08.2017 by train No.16604 which is an entirely different train from the booked train No.22637 and the same was delivered to the consignee only on 03.09.2017 vide PRO No.532 in the local delivery register. We also observe that the said consignment booked on 13.08.2017 which could have reached Mangalore and the consigned parcel could have been delivered on 14.08.2017 was seen actually received on 31.08.2017 by train No.16604 and delivered to the consignee, Mr.Saif only on 03.09.2017. This act shows very grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party which caused the complainant to suffer much hardship, mental agony and financial loss. But, at the same time complainant is not seen to have complained to the opposite party officials about the very delayed delivery of the consignment and about the poor condition of the goods consigned at the time of delivery and consequently its unsalable condition.
Under these circumstances we decide to allow the complaint in part.
We order the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation towards hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to belated delivery of the consignment to the consignee; the opposite party is also ordered to pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as cost of this proceedings. Since no proof is produced by the complainant to show that the consigned goods could not be sold, complainant’s claim for Rs.36,500/- compensation cannot be allowed.
This order shall be executed within one month from date of receipt of this order; failing which complainant is also entitled to 9% interest p.a on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 11th day of March 2019.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photo copy of receipt No.103470 issued by opposite party to the complainant
Ext.A2 – Copy of the lawyer notice with postal receipt dated 11.09.2017 to the opposite party.
Ext.A3 – Postal receipt dated 11.09.2017.
Ext.A4 - Postal acknowledgment card dated 13.09.2017.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Delivery Report No.068103470 dated 03.09.2017(original)
Ext.B2 - Letter dated 30.11.2017 from the Chief Parcel Supervisor, Mangalore central to the
Sr.DCM/PGT(original)
Ext.B3 - Letter dated 28.11.2017 from the Chief Parcel Supervisor, Mangalore central to the
Sr.DCM/PGT(original)
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 - Saifulla
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost - Rs.1,000/-
