Presidents:-

                       1. Sri P.Samantara, President.

                       2. Sri G.K.Rath, Member.

                       Dated,Bolangir the 23rd day of September 2015.

                       C.C.No. 32 of 2014.

Pritam Panda, age- 32 years son of late Prafulla Kumar Panda.

Resident of Rajendrapada, Bolangir Town, P.O/P.s & Dist-

Bolangir.

                                                                   ..                 ..                Complainant.

• Versus-

The Station Manager, E.Co. Railway, Bolangir.

At-Railway Station, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                   ..                 ..                Opp.Party.

Adv.for the complainant- Sri Prakash Mishra.

Adv.for the Opp.Party   - Sri R.K.Tripathy.

                                                                                 Date of filing of the case- 08.05.2014

                                                                                 Date of order                   - 23.09.2015

JUDGMENT.

Sri P.Samantara, President.

                In the matter of an application u/s.12 of the C.P.Act,1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the Opp.Party.

2.            The case of the complainant- That he booked some parcel at East Coast Rly. Hyderbad vide parcel Way bill No. 1709563 on dt.27.04.2013 but it received one packet short. The railway authority failed to locate and deliver in spite of several efforts. Non availability to the complainant inclined him to institute the case. Prayed to recover the and delivered the item under the forum’s direction. Relied on Railway receipt and due slip in photo copy and affidavit.

3             Pursuant to notice, the O.P filed the version admitting that 4 packets send by A.Pande, and 3 nos of packets were delivered to the consignee. One packet not received (NR) message was sent to Hyderabad.

4.            Further contended Railway records show the complainant was neither the consignor nor consignee of the said parcel booked on 27.04.2013 vide PN. Bill No. A 1709563,booking No.4589-104708. A Pande as the sender and consignor. As such the complainant has no locustandi to file the present complaint petition.

5.            Moreover the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints on account of deficiency arising from loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of the goods by Railway carriage. Railway claims Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction u/s.13,15 read with section 28 RCTC,1987.

6.                  Again, the complainant has neither declared the value of the consignment and nor pay the percentage charge on excess value at the time of booking under the circumstance, the petition of the complainant having no merits be dismissed with cost in the interest of justice. Relied attested photo stat true copy of parcel way bill and memos in three nos.

7.                 Heard and perused the record and submissions at both end.

8.                 Perusal of the document on record reveals, Pritam Panda is the husband of Anuja Panda, which has been mis-quoted  the name as A Pande during booking procedure at Secunderabad in parcel Waybills No.1709563, the pass port copy, voter identity card copy and marriage registration certificate  copy is much evidential on the contention prevails over the consignors name and the complainant, on the subject we relied and draw our strength in the settled principle that the wife/spouse can file complaint on behalf of husband- Punjab National Bank Vs R.B.Sethy. Besides in the present case, the complainant has filed authorization from the spouse/consignor Anuja Panda. Further coming to the issue loss of parcel, it is admitted one packet parcel has been lost out of four nos of packet, although the complainant avers to be valuable but no document found to admit the valuable material contains the packet as advanced with. Even the Railway authority has admitted the loss in consequence made query to Hyderabad office,. In such a circumstances, we consider, the packet not yet recovered and intimated to the consignor is genuine and bonafide to the core. Thus we allowed  the case on merit.

                                  ORDER.

                     The O.P is directed to hand over the packet to the petitioner after getting it recovered within 45 days of this order, in alternate, in case non availability of the packet,the O.P is liable to pay a sum of Rs 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only towards loss, harassment & mental agony sustained within same time frame, inclusive of legal expenses, failing which same will attract interest @ 9% per annum on the sum from the date of booking till realization without demur.

ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 21^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015.

                                                    I agree.

                                                   (G.K.Rath)                         (P.Samantara)

                                                   MEMBER.                         PRESIDENT.