By:Miss. R.K.Madanavally, Member
Facts in brief :-
On 5.6.11, one Varakkandi Sreedharan had booked a parcel from Vadakara to Tirur by Mangalore – Coimbatore passenger train. Though the opposite party No1 was the parcel officer in duty on that day, he was not in the office for more than one hour and his absence was informed to the station master by the complainant. The station master told the complainant that he was also in search of the parcel officer. The complainant alleges that the complainant and the above said Sreedharan were compelled to wait there for more than one hour without having lunch.
There after one loading employee, Hameed, who was in charge of the office had taken the parcel to the complainant's car without the consent of the complainant. The loading employee demanded Rs. 120/- as loading charge and after that he had modified the amount and charged Rs. 90/-.
At about 3'o clock, the opposite party No1 came to the office and all the facts were informed to him by the complainant. The opposite party No1 informed the complainant that he cannot interfere with all these matters and the loading employees are recruited by private agencies. The opposite party No1 further informed that he was not aware of the criteria of loading charges.
The opposite party No1 refused to give the register though the complainant demanded the same. According to the complainant, there is a sharing of money between the loading employees and opposite party No1. The opposite party No1 abused and threatened the complainant. The complainant alleges deficiency in service by pointing out the above incidents.
As per IA 382/12, the name of the opposite party No3 was deleted. Other opposite parties appeared and filed their detailed version by denying all the averements in the complaint. The opposite parties admitted that Mr. Sreedharan had booked 3 bags, but no parcel was booked in the name of the complainant.
The booked items were received by Train No.56324 dated 5.6.11 at 14.15 hours and delivered on the same day at 15.15 hours without collecting any amount. The allegations that the parcel officer was not in the office more than one hour, the complainant and Mr. Sreedharan were compelled to wait more than one hour and the collection of Rs. 90/- by the loading employee, Hameed were denied by the opposite parties. The complainant had made a complaint on a consignment which is not in his name. One Mr. Santhosh Kumar, the Head commercial clerk was on duty at that time. Further, Railway had not engaged any labourer for removal of the parcels delivered.
According to the opposite parties, there was no deficiency on their part and the parcel booked by Sreedharan was delivered to the party under clear signature, without any delay and without collecting any charges. There is a difference of 45 minutes between the arrival of the train and delivery of parcels. The opposite parties submits for the dismissal of the complainant with compensatory cost
Now the points in questions which are raised for our consideration here are
Whether the opposite parties are deficient in service?
If so relief and costs?
Point No1 and 2
The complainant has produced Ext. A1 notice issued in favour of Sub divisional Manager (Commercial) Southern Railway, Palakkad. Ext. A2 is the letter send by Divisional Railway Manager addressed to the complainant stating that the labour employee Hameed is admitted in a hospital. There after the complaint had issued Ext. A3 letter as a reply to Ext. A2, in which he had stated that he is not prosecuting Mr. Hameed since he is under the treatment of cancer. Except these documentary evidences, the complainant had adduced oral evidence also, the opposite parties submitted that the complainant is not a consumer and no parcel is received in the name of the complainant.
Since the complainant is a beneficiary as per S.2(1)(d) he is a consumer and so no question arises whether the complainant can file such a complaint .
The main grievance of the complaint is that, the baggage was illegally seized by the opposite parties until the complaint paid the labour charge to the labour employee, Hameed. He further submitted that, on 5.6.11, no board was seen in Tirur Railway Station showing that “Customers need not pay any charges for handling of parcel”. The above facts leads to the deficiency in service by the opposite parties.
The complainant had not a case the there was delay in getting the luggage. While he was cross examining he had deposed that the luggage’s were unloaded in to his car in between 2.30 and 3.00pm. It was also deposed by him that “മൂന്നാമത്തെ plat form - ല് വന്ന ഒരു പാര്സല്, parcel office - ല് വന്നു enter ചെയ്ത് party - ക്കു കൊടുക്കാന് ഏകദേശം 15 മിനിറ്റ് മതിയാകും. So we are also presuming that there was no delay for getting the luggage and there is no deficiency in that aspect. The labour employee had charged Rs. 90/- for unloading the luggage. Though this matter was informed to the opposite parties, they abused the complaint by uttering mocking words. There is no proof for the acceptance of the amount by the labour employee. The complainant alleges the deficiency because of the collusion between the Railway authority and labour employees. More over he had suffered much by the ridiculous behavior of the opposite parties.
A prudent man is expecting a minimum behavior from un institution like Railway. At least the opposite parties ought to have conducted an inquiry regrading the allegations of the complainant. Instead they harassed him and that leads to the case.
Hence, we order that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs. 2500/- to the complainant as a compensation for the mental agony suffered by him. No cost.
Dated this 24th day of September , 2014
Sd/-
K.MOHAMMED ALI , PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
Sd/-
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Complainant, P.V.Dinesh
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A2
Ext.A1 (s) : Lawyer Notice issued by the complainant to opposite party
Ext.A2 : Replay of Lawyer Notice issued by opposite party, dated 17.1.2012
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Sd/-
K.MOHAMMED ALI , PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
Sd/-
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
