Presented by Sri B.K. Pati, Member.<br /> The present complaint pertains to deficiency of service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. It is brief history is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant dispatched on Dt. 02/06/2007, a consignment of four numbers of cartons of Herbal product amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees one lac fifty thousand)only from Jharsuguda to Patna, in the address of S.S. Enterprises, Hazipur. When the consignee went to receive the consignment he found that out of four numbers of cartons only one carton had reached Patna Railway Parcel Office. As a result, the consignee did not receive that one carton and immediately informed about the loss of the three cartons to the Parcel Officer at Patna Junction. The Complainant alleges the loss of the said cartons to be due to negligence or/and misconduct of the Opposite Parties and that the Opposite Parties are liable for the cost of the said consignment as well as for mental pain, agony and loss of business. The Complainant claims from the Opposite Parties Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lac fifty thousand)only towards the cost of the consignment, Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards damages and loss of profit, Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties in their version question the maintainability of the present complaint in view of the fact and law as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 and contend that the case is barred by Section 15 read with Section 13(1)(i) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The Opposite Parties claim that the case is triable by D.C.D.R.F., Jharsuguda as the consignment was booked at the Jharsuguda Station which falls with in a territorial jurisdiction of that Forum. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties say that as per loading summary of Jharsuguda Station, the consignment was full on Dt. 02/06/2007 by 3287DN and so there being no deficiency on the part of Jarsuguda Parcel in due discharge of the carrier liability. The said three cartons might have been unloaded in some other Station en route which shall be delivered when arrived. They quote para no.118 of Indian Railway Conference Association which says, “Railway do not guarantee dispatch of articles or animals by any particular train or delivery with in any definite period”. Besides as per Section 103 of the Railway Act, when ever the Complainant has not declared the value nor has paid the percent charge, the monetary liability for the loss shall not be more than Rs. 50/-(Rupees fifty)only per Kilogram, the claim of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees one lac fifty thousand)only, therefore, not being tenable under the said provision the Opposite Parties pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three) has been set ex-party.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint the version of the Opposite Parties along with the copies of documents filed and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> Transport constitutes one of the vital ingredients of “Service” as defined under Sub-section (o) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. The Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the existing Laws pertaining to the subject matter that have been brought within the fold of this Act for adjudication, with the aim and object of affording speedy and inexpensive justice through a simple procedure based on the principle of natural justice, doing away with numerous technicalities. The cause of action of the present complaint arises out of transportation of goods through the Opposite Parties company and hence the Complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986. <br /> <br /> This Forum, on the petition of the Complainant Under Section 11(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 has permitted the Complainant to be filed in the Bargarh Forum though the cause of action for the same arose at Jharsuguda and so it is triable by the present Forum. <br /> <br /> The Complainant files NCJ 2006 Page 140 National Commission Order, in Revision Petition No. 2154 of 2004 in support of his plea that the present complaint is triable under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. The subject matter of the above Revision pertains to theft of luggage carried by the passenger while traveling in the train, where as the present complaint is as regards the non delivery of goods transported through the Railway carriage. Hence the said ruling is not applicable to the present complaint.<br /> <br /> On the other hand the Opposite Parties file C.P.R. 1993(2) page 94 Revision Petition No. 125 of 1992 (National Commission) and copy of C.D. Appeal No. 722 of 1997, of the Hon'ble State Commission, Orissa which hold that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint regarding deficiency in service arising from loss, destruction, damages, deterioration, non-delivery or delay in delivery of goods entrusted to Railway Administration for carriage. This jurisdiction is now exclusively vested in Railway Claim Tribunal. <br /> <br /> In view of such finding made by the Hon'ble National Commission as well as Hon'ble State Commission, Orissa, the present complaint is not triable under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986.<br /> Complaint disallowed.<br /> No cost. <br />