BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :: WARANGAL
Present : Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
And
Sri Patel Praveen Kumar,
Member.
Thursday, the 17th day of March, 2011.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.31/2010
Between:
A. Bharathi, W/o Anjaiah,
R/o H.No.3-7-33, Gundibandal,
Kumarpalli, Hanamkonda,
Warangal District.
… Complainant
And
1) The General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam,
Secunderabad.
2) The Chief Claims Officer,
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam,
Secunderabad.
3) The Chief Parcel Supervisor,
Parcel Office, South Central Railway,
Kazipet Railway Station,
Kazipet, Warangal District.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant :: V. Venkateshwar Rao,
Counsel for the Opposite Parties :: Sri D. Prem Sagar, Advocate.
This complaint is coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following order.
CC 31/2010 -- 2 --
ORDER
Sri D.Chiranjeevi Babu, President
This complaint is filed by the complainant A.Bharathi against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- for the damage of T.V. along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of non-delivery i.e, 19-03-2008 till realization, to award Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The case of the complainant is that the complainant booked 21 inches Colour T.V. along with vessels from Pune to Kazipet on 18-03-2008 in Konark Express with opposite parties by paying necessary charges vide luggage ticket receipt No.969420 and the opposite parties assured to safe transport of the said T.V. from Pune to Kazipet. Then complainant was also boarded in the Konark Express at Pune and the train reached at Kazipet station on 19-03-2008, he went to luggage bogi and asked the opposite party No.3 to get down T.V. and household articles, but opposite party No.3 get down only vessels leaving the T.V. and on question the opposite party No.3 assured to deliver the same in return trip and he will intimate the same. Later the opposite party No.3 delivered the T.V. in damaged condition. The T.V. was to a tune of Rs.15,000/-. The complainant submitted written representation to opposite party No.2 on 05-04-2008 about the damage of T.V. and to pay damages of Rs.15,000/-, for which no response from opposite parties. Vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notice on 19-06-2008 to opposite parties, for which the opposite parties 1 and 2 sent a remittance note dated 29-09-2008 along with cheque bearing NO.072404 for Rs.2,900/- issued in the name of the complainant. The opposite parties accepted their negligence and damage of T.V. and instead of issuing cheque for Rs.15,000/- they have issued only for Rs.2,900/-. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- for damage of T.V. with interest @12% p.a. from 19-03-2008 till payment, to award Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
The opposite parties filed the Written Version stating that the complaint as filed against opposite parties without impleading Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Central Railway is not maintainable as the suits against the Railways have to be filed only against the Union of India, represented by the Concerned General Manager of that
CC 31/2010 -- 3 --
railway. Further this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this complaint since Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 expressly bars any other court or authority to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Railway Claims Tribunal to adjudicate upon matters referred in Section 13 of RCT Act, 1987. Compensation due to damage to the booked parcel is a matter which falls under section13 (a) of the RCT Act, 1987 and only the Railway Claims Tribunal has the power to decide the said mater.
Further it is true the complainant’s alleged claim of Rs.15,000/- was registered in the office of the opposite party NO.2 and the same was dealt and compensation was assessed as per statutory rules and an amount of Rs.2,900/- was paid correctly to the complainant. If the complainant has any grievance against the amount of compensation received by him, he has to approach appropriate bench of Railways Claim Tribunal by filing an Original Application under the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Railways Act, 1989 but not this Hon’ble Forum and requested this Forum to dismiss this case.
The complainant in support of her claim, filed her Affidavit in the form of chief Examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of opposite parties B.D.Christopher filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Ex.B-1.
Now the point for consideration is:
1) Whether this Forum got jurisdiction to try this matter?
2) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the
opposite parties?
3) If so, to what Relief?
Point NO.1:-
After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:
The main contention of the opposite parties is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case and Section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act expressly bars any other court to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Railway Claims Tribunal to adjudicate upon matters referred in Section 13 of the RCT Act, 1987. Compensation due to damage of booked parcel is a matter which falls under section 13 (a) of the RCT Act, 1987 and only the Railway Claims Tribunal has the power to decide this matter. For this our answer is that as per Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this Forum has got jurisdiction to try this matter. As per Section 3 of Consumer
CC 31/2010 -- 4 --
Protection Act “Not in derogation of any other law:- The provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Further in the Comment it is stated that Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum – Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum in executing and registrating agreement for sale of immovable property not bared qua remedy available before Civil Court (Mandira Mookerje V.District Consumer Redressal Forum, AIR 2005 Cal 108). So as per Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this Forum has got jurisdiction to try this case and we answered this point accordingly with regard to jurisdiction point.
Further point is that as per Manual of Railways Act, the Railway Authorities calculated the amount for the value of the T.V. and assessed the amount of Rs.2,900/- and sent a cheque to the complainant. The contention of the complainant is that he purchased the T.V. for an amount of Rs.15,000/- that was booked along with vessels from Pune to Kazipet on 18-03-2008 in Konark Express with opposite parties by paying necessary charges vide luggage ticket receipt No.969420 and at Kazipet when the complainant got down he asked about household articles and T.V., he got household articles, but not T.V. and the opposite party NO.3 assured to deliver the same and he will intimate the same. Later the opposite party No.3 delivered the T.V. in damaged condition. The cost of T.V. is Rs.15,000/-. Now the complainant requested the cost of T.V. as we already stated in supra i.e, he wants to get Rs.15,000/- along with interest 12% p.a. and Rs.10,000/- towards damages. For this our answer is that the complainant has not filed the original receipt of the T.V. In which year he purchased the T.V. for how much amount he purchased the same, with regard to that particulars, he has not filed the same receipt. The complainant was asking for an amount of Rs.15,000/-, how he assessed the amount of Rs.15,000/- we are unable to understand. If there is any receipt certainly this Forum can come to conclusion that the cost of T.V. is Rs.15,000/-, but here the complainant has not filed any receipt of T.V. It is true as per the documents filed by the complainant he booked the T.V. with the opposite parties. We do not know whether the T.V. is old one or new one and the cost of T.V. is Rs.15,000/- or less than Rs.15,000/-. To assess the cost of T.V. no instrument is with us. Without filing any receipt of T.V. we are helpless.
CC 31/2010 -- 5 --
The opposite parties stated in the Written version that the complainant’s alleged claim of Rs.15,000/- was registered in the office of the opposite party NO.2 and the same was dealt and compensation was assessed as per statutory rules and an amount of Rs.2,900/- was paid correctly to the complainant. If the complainant has any grievance against the amount of compensation received by him, he has to approach appropriate bench of Railways Claim Tribunal by filing an Original Application under the Railways Claims Tribunal Act. So the opposite parties already assessed the cost of value of T.V. is Rs.2,900/- as per statutory rules and paid the same through cheque to the complainant. The same cheque was also filed before this Forum.
With regard to Section 103 of Railways Act 1989:
i) “Where any consignment is entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway and the value of such consignment had not been declared as required under sub-section (2) by the consignor the amount of liability of the railway administration for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of the consignment shall in no case exceed such amount calculated with reference to the weight of the consignment as may be prescribed, and where such consignment consist of an animal, the liability shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.
ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the consignor declares the value of any consignment at the time of its entrustment to a railway administration for carriage by railway, and pays such percentage charge as maybe 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 maybe, under sub-section (1), 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.
iii) The Central Government may, from time to time, by notification direct that such goods as may be specified in the notification should not be accepted for carriage by railway unless the value of such goods is declared and percentage charges is paid as required under sub-section (2). In this regard Para-819 of Indian Railway Commercial Manual, Volume-I is extracted i.e., booking of certain valuable articles of Part I of Schedule II of the Railways Rules, 1990 as luggage:- When luggage includes packages containing valuable articles, it must be dealt in accordance with the special rules pertaining to the booking of such articles as laid down in I.R.C.A. Coaching Tariff and chapter XI of this Manual.
CC 31/2010 -- 6 --
So in this case the Railway Authorities assessed the damage of T.V. in a correct manner. As per their rules the Railway Authorities estimated the correct value of the damaged TV for Rs.2,900/- and sent a cheque to the complainant. We accept the contention of Railway Authorities and come to the conclusion that whatever the opposite parties have done is in a reasonable manner because in this case the complainant has not filed any Receipt of the T.V. i.e, at the time of purchasing of T.V. he would get some Receipt, he has to file the same, but he has not filed. Without filing of that receipt he has no locusstandi to ask the amount of Rs.15,000/-. It is true the opposite parties admitted that T.V. was damaged, but what is the cost of T.V. we do not know. So as per the rules of Railways they estimated the cost of T.V. is Rs.2,900/- is in a correct manner. We do not want to interfere with the correctness of the opposite parties and we see no grounds to allow this complaint. Hence, we answered this point accordingly in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant.
Point NO.2: To what Relief:- The first point is decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant this point is also decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 17th March, 2011)
PRESIDENT Male Member
District Consumer Forum, Warangal
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Parties
Affidavit of complainant filed. Affidavit of opposite party Nos 1& 2 filed.
CC 31/2010 -- 7 --
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A-1 is the office copy of legal notice issued to opposite parties, dt.19-06-08.
2. Ex.A-2 is Postal Receipts (3)
3. Ex.A-3 is Acknowledgments (2)
4. Ex.A-4 is the letter from opposite party NO.1 to complainant,
dt.31-07-08.
5. Ex.A-5 is the cheque for Rs.2,900/-.
6. Ex.A-6 is the Remittance Note.
ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. Ex.B-1 is the Indian Railway Commercial Manual.
.
PRESIDENT
