SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY Vs. MANISH CHHAPADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A .K.Samantaray, PresidentAggrieved by the order passed on 14.9.2005 by the District Forum, Bolangir in C.D. Case No. 11 of 2005, the General Manager, South Eastern Railway and Chief Claims Officer, Claim and Refund, New Koilaghat Building, 14, Strand Road, 11th Floor, Kolkata have preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE respondent as complainant filed the consumer complaint and the facts of his case, as we gather from the complaint, are as follows: The complainant had purchased electrical goods worth Rupees 77,400 and entrusted the same to the Railways at Delhi on 29.5.2002 for carriage and delivery at Kantabanji Railway Station and for that he paid Rupees 440 towards freight charges. The goods were not carried or delivered. It is alleged by the complainant that the goods are burnt at the booking station due to carelessness and negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Railway. The complainant admittedly has received and acknowledged the receipt of a sum of Rupees 7,250 through South Eastern Railway pay order dated 10.3.2004 towards the loss of his goods in terms of Section 103 of the Railway Act, 1989 . Even after receipt of the same, the complaint was filed by the complainant, as we find, as because the goods booked was expected to reach within twenty -six hours, but did not reach at Kantabanji Railway Station even after twenty -eight months and for that the complainant claiming an amount of Rupees 1,13,652, which claim he had made before the Chief Claim Officer and was not paid, filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Bolangir and the District Forum by the impugned order directed the opposite parties, i.e., the appellants to pay value of the goods burnt i.e. Rupees 77,400 along with interest @10% per annum from 29.5.2002 till actual payment by deducting the amount of Rupees 7,250, which was already received by the complainant. The appellants / opposite parties were further directed to pay compensation of Rupees 5,000 towards mental agony and litigation expenses of Rupees 500.

(3.) BEFORE the District Forum, these appellants as opposite parties had questioned the maintainability of the complaint before the Consumer Fora and questioned its jurisdiction in view of Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 . It was also contended that there remains no liability on the part of the opposite parties/ appellants after the railway discharged its liability by making payment of Rupees 7,250 calculated in terms of Section 103 (2) of the Railway Act, 1989 in respect of the consignment, the value of which was not declared at the time of booking.