Delhi

StateCommission

A/211/2015

EKTA JHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

05 Oct 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:05.10.2015

 

First Appeal- 211/2015

 

(Arising out of the order dated 17.12.2014 passed in Complainant Case No. 926/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi)

 

Ekta Jha,

W/o Shri V.K. Jha,

House No.272, Naharpur,

Sector-7, Rohini,

Delhi-110085.

•  

Versus

Union of India

Through General Manager,

Northern Railway,

Baroda House,

New Delhi-110001.

                                                ….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

OP Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the “Act”) against order dated 17.12.14 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi (in short the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.926/2012.
2. Along with the appeal, there is an application for condonation of delay of 97 days in filing the appeal.  It is stated that the copy of the impugned order was received by appellant in January, 2015 and thereafter the appellant contacted her Counsel, Shri J.S. Mishra for filing the appeal.  In the meanwhile, appellant received a cheque of Rs.5,000/- from the respondent in compliance of the impugned order.  Again she contacted her Counsel who promised for filling the appeal after the Holi vacation.  But in April, 2015, the said Counsel had returned the file.  Thereafter the appellant contacted other lawyers including the present Counsel. The present Counsel agreed to file the  appeal.  Thereafter appeal was drafted and filed before this Commission.  In this process, delay of 97 days has been caused.
3. We may mention that the copy of the impugned order was dispatched on 23.12.14.  The appellant has not stated on what date of January month she received the copy of impugned order.  Further it is not stated as to when she had contacted her previous Counsel, Shri J.S. Mishra.  The appellant has also not stated as on which date the said Counsel returned the file.  The application has been casually drafted without giving necessary details.  The delay is of 97 days.  The appellant has neither explained the delay in a proper manner nor has acted in a reasonable manner.  The reasoning given do not construe ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay.
4. In any event we have also gone through the impugned order as well as grounds of appeal. 
5. The background of the case is that the appellant herein was the complainant before the District Forum.  A complaint was filed by her under Section 12 of the Act against the respondent alleging deficiency in service on their part.  She had alleged that on 12.6.12, the appellant/complainant was coming from Sikandrabad to New Delhi in Train No.14005, AP Express.  It was alleged that TTE had allowed some unreserved passengers in the coach.  On being objected, TTE did not take any action.  When train reached Ghaziabad, the complainant found that her purse was missing.   A report was lodged at P.S. Anand Vihar and with GRP.  When no response was received, the complaint before the District Forum was filed.   

5. The respondent/OP contested the complaint case by filing written statement alleging therein that the complaint was filed on false and frivolous grounds.  It was alleged that any article carried by the passenger without booking was to be ensured by the passengers only and respondent is not responsible in any manner.

6. After hearing both the parties and considering the evidence led by way of affidavits, Ld. District Forum held that there is deficiency in service.  It was further held that no value of lost articles was mentioned on 13.6.12.  Its mention in FIR on 14.6.12 was an after thought.  Accordingly, Ld. District Forum had awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment inclusive of litigation expenses.

7. The grievance of the appellant is that the compensation awarded is on very low side.  It is contended that the purse containing goods worth Rs.70,000/- were lost in the train.  Apart from  that  harassment was also caused to the appellant/complainant.  It is stated that the appellant had travelled in 2^nd Class AC and had paid heavy amount of ticket to the respondent.  In these circumstances, higher amount of compensation ought to have been awarded to her.

8. We have considered the submissions made.  It is admitted position that the appellant/complainant had completed the journey.  Loss of the articles took place on 13.6.12.  We have perused the report dated 13.6.12 whereby the incident was reported to Shri A.A. Khan, TTE at 3.40 a.m. In the aforesaid report, it is stated that the approximate cost of articles stolen is Rs.25,000/-.  However, no details of the articles have been given.  In a report to the SHO at P.S. Anand Vihar wherein FIR was recorded at about 5.20 a.m. on 14.6.12, the details of articles have been given i.e. Watch 2 Ladies (Titan, Quartz), Mobile White X-201 9891140747, One ATM-Vijaya Bank, Pitampura, Rs.6500/-, Gold and Pearls chain of Rs.4000/- & Voter ID.  No explanation has been given as to why the alleged articles were not disclosed in the report to the TTE.  Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that the detail of articles in the FIR at later point of time is an afterthought.

9. We agree with the reasoning given by Ld. District Forum. No illegality is seen in the impugned order.  We find no reason to entertain the appeal.   

10.  The appeal is time barred.  The same is also not considered fit for admission.  Accordingly the same stands dismissed.

 

 

 

11.     A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(OP Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

sa