SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”), on dated 15.03.2019, alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where OP No.1 is the DRM, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur, West Bengal, OP No.2 is the Station Manager, South Eastern Railway, Balasore and OP No.3 is the Station Manager, Durgapur Railway Station, West Bengal. That, as per the complainant’s petition the cause of action arose on dated 11.7.2018 and 10.8.2018.
2. That upon admission of the present case, the Ops were appropriately noticed along with copy of the complaint petition. The record reveals, the notice was properly served upon the OP No.1 on dated 8.11.2019, but he did not turn up to contest the case before this commission, despite given several opportunities and hence set ex parte. But OP No.2& 3 appeared and filed their written version separately.
3. The case of the Complainant in brief is that, on 11.07.2018, the complainant booked his Hero Honda Glamour motor cycle at Balasore Railway Station vide PPR No.4000812271 for delivery at Durgapur Railway Station in his name and paid booking charge of Rs.777.00. He has purchased the aforesaid vehicle from authorized dealer “Neelam Motors” situated at Balasore for Rs.57,506.00. The vehicle in question could not delivered to him at the destination as the whereabouts of the vehicle was not traced out and reported to have been missing on the way to Durgapur. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.2, who failed to give the whereabouts of the vehicle. Similarly, OP No.3 informed that he has not received the vehicle. On 10.8.2018, the complainant informed the matter in writing to OP No.1 for early delivery of his motor cycle, but no reply was received. It is the further case of the complainant that he is facing much trouble for loss of his motor cycle and sustained loss in his business from which he was earning Rs.10,000.00 per month. Thus, the complainant was constrained to file this case with the prayer stated in his complaint petition. Hence, this case.
4. To substantiate its case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record-
- Xeroxcopy of sale certificate.
- Xerox copy of retail invoice.
- Xerox copy of receipt.
- Xerox copy of debit note.
- Xerox copy of parcel way bill ticket.
- Xerox copy of Registration Certificate.
- Xerox copy of letter of missing sent to Ops.
- Xerox copy of postal receipt.
5. OP No.2 has not only challenged the maintainability of the case and cause of action to file the case but also denied the averments made in the complaint petition. It is specifically denied by OP No.2 that the complainant booked two wheeler glamour motor cycle at Balasore Railway Station for delivery at Durgapur Railway Station and the cost of the vehicle was Rs.57,506.00 and missing on the way to Durgapur or the vehicle could not reach the destination and the complainant approached the OP No.2. The complainant did not file any document to show that he has booked his vehicle at Balasore Railway Station. Therefore, the OP No.2 has prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
6. OP No.3 has stated in his written version that the alleged motor cycle has not been received at Durgapur Station till today. Any loss of parcel consignment and claim against the same may be lodged as per provision of Railway Act and this Commission is not the proper forum to settle the matter. Further, it is not justified that the complainant can claim full purchase value of the alleged motor cycle. Hence, OP No.3 has prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
7. In view of the above averments of the parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a Consumer as per C.P Act, 2019?
(ii) Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether the case is maintainable in the eye of Law?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops towards the Complainant?
(v) To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
8. The complainant stated in his complaint petition that he booked his Glamour motor cycle Regd No. OR-01K-7760 in his name bearing Engine No.AO6EJFGL20067, Chassis No.MBLJA06AMFGL17408 on 11.07.2018 in S.E. Railway at Balasore Railway Station vide PPR No.4000812271 for its delivery at Durgapur Railway Station and for that he has paid the booking charges of Rs.777.00. The cost of his vehicle was Rs.57,506.00 which he had purchased from Neelam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Vivekananda Marg, Balasore. But the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant could not reach its destination. The complainant tried his best and approached the Station Manager, Balasore Railway Station, Balasore, who failed to supply any satisfactory information regarding whereabouts of the vehicle in question. The complainant, thus, informed the Station Master, Durgapur Railway Station about the missing of his vehicle on 22.10.2018.
9. Further, the complainant having failed to receive his vehicle in question at Durgapur Railway Station, on 10.8.2018, wrote a letter to D.R.M., Kharagpur with copies to Station Manager, S.E. Railway, Balasore Station and Station Manager, Durgapur Railway Station, West Bengal requesting for early delivery of his motor cycle, but yet no reply is received from any corner. To substantiate his case, complainant has produced the Xerox copy of sale certificate, Xerox copy of retail invoice, Xerox copy of receipt, Xerox copy of debit note, original parcel way bill/luggage ticket, Xerox copy of registration certificate, Xerox copy of letter issued to DRM, Kharagpur and Xerox copies of postal receipts.
10. On the other hand, OP No.2 in his written version challenging the cost of the vehicle in question, has vehemently stated that the complainant has not filed any documents to show that he has actually booked his vehicle at Balasore Railway Station. It is out of place to mention here that OP No.2 is none other than the Station Manager, S.E. Railway, Balasore in whose office the complainant booked his motor cycle for its delivery at Durgapur Railway Station.
11. Similarly, OP No.3, in his written version, emphatically stated that the alleged motor cycle has not been received at Durgapur Railway Station till date and this Commission is not competent to decide the matter of compensation. That apart, the claim of the complainant is not justified as he has claimed the full purchase value of the motor cycle in question.
12. Upon meticulous examination of the complaint petition, written version filed on behalf of the OP No.2 & 3 along with the documents presented by the parties, it is found that thecomplainant booked his alleged Glamour motor cycle in his name on 11.07.2018 in S.E. Railway at Balasore Railway Station vide PPR No.4000812271 for its delivery at Durgapur Railway Station and also paid the booking charges of Rs.777.00. To substantiate his case, the complainant has produced the parcel way bill dated 11.7.2018 from which it reveals that he booked his two wheeler Glamour motor cycle Regd. No.OD-01K-7760 in the office of OP No.2 paying booking charges @ Rs.777.00. The said motor cycle is to be delivered at Durgapur Railway Station. On the other hand, either of the contested Ops have ever challenged that the parcel way bill issued by the S.E. Railway Authority of Balasore is a fake one or has not been issued by their Authority. The complainant used to run pillar to post again and again, but his alleged motor cycle could not be traced out nor the OP No.2 stated about the whereabouts of the missing motor cycle and moreover, the OP No.3 stated that he has not received the aforesaid vehicle. Finding no other alternative, the complainant issued letter to OP No.1narrating his plight and copy thereof was sent to OP No.2 & 3. As the Ops paid a deaf ear to it, the complainant was constrained to file the present case. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Commission, it is held that the complainant is a customer under the Ops and he has cause of action to file the case and also the case is maintainable.
13. So far as the deficiency of service on the part of the Ops towards the complainant is concerned, the complainant has vividly narrated that when his motor cycle in question has not been reached at its destination for delivery, he visited the office of OP No.2. At that time, OP No.2 ventilated that the vehicle could not reach the destination and not traced out for which it is not possible for delivery. Similarly, on query made by the complainant, OP No.3 informed that he has not received the vehicle in question. Therefore, being harassed from the OP No.2 & 3, the complainant wrote letter to OP No.1 and the copy of said letter also sent to OP No.2 & 3. Neither any reply from any corner is received by the complainant nor any attempt has been made on their part for recovery of the motor cycle in question, rather, the Ops, being the responsible employees under the Administration of Indian Railway, showed their callousness towards the complainant. From the above, it is clearly made out that the nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by the Ops is short fall in this case. The Ops not only performed in accordance with law, but also cheated the complainant, who made run here and there for his vehicle and sustained mental agony, that too he has also sustained loss in his business for want of his vehicle. Therefore, deficiency of service on the part of the Ops towards the complainant is attributed and thus, the Ops are jointly and severally liable for the compensation as claimed by the complainant.
14. Learned Advocate for the contesting Ops has strongly submitted that the complainant has booked one old and used motor cycle and he himself declared the value of that motor as Rs.10,000.00. In support of their contention, contesting Ops have produced the declaration duly filled in by the complainant at the time of booking his motor cycle. It is further submitted that when the complainant declared the value of his consignment at the time of its entrustment to the Railway administration for carriage by railway, and paid such percentage charge as may be prescribed on so much of the value of such consignment as is in excess of the liability of the railway administration as calculated or specified, as the case may be, the liability of the railway administration for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of such consignment shall not exceed the value so declared and the value so declared is its true value. On perusal of the declaration submitted by the complainant at the time of booking of his motor cycle, it is found that he has declared the consignment is of a value of Rs.10,000.00. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the cost of declared booking amount of Rs.10,000.00 only and not cost of vehicle of Rs.57,506.00, as claimed for. As regards other compensations, as claimed by the complainant, this Commission is of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs.5,000.00 as compensation for loss in his business, Rs.5000.00 for litigation fees and Rs.5000.00 for mental agony, is awarded to meet the ends of justice.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The complaint of the complainant be and the same is allowed on contest against the Ops No.2 & 3 and ex parte against the OP No.1. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000.00 towards the cost of the vehicle in question along with compensation of Rs.5,000.00, litigation expenses of Rs.5,000.00 and Rs.5,000.00 for mental agony. The Ops are hereby directed to pay the awards passed to the complainant within two months hence, failing which it shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of cause of action arose till the date of actual realization. In case of deviation, the complainant is at liberty to realise the same through the process of law.
Given under my hand and the seal of this Commission, this the 30th day of May, 2023.
