State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohan,Thirumangalam, vs The Southern Railway, Trihirappalli ... on 5 August, 2013
IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Hon'ble Thiru. Justice. R. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT
Thiru.J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER
C.C.No.34/2012
(C.C.No.75/2011 on the file of State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Chennai.)
MONDAY, THE 05th DAY OF AUGUST 2013.
Mohan,
S/o. Renganathan,
44-E/56, Kollimalaiyan Compound,
Kattumariamman Kovil Street,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai District. Complainant
Vs
The Southern Railway,
Trihirappalli Division,
Commercial Deputy Manager Office,
Trichy Railway Station,
Trichy. Opposite Party
Counsel for complainant : Mr. R. Krishnakumar, Advocate.
Counsel for opposite party: Mr.A. Hajamohideen, Advocate.
This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 02.08.2013 and on
hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this
Commission made the following:
2
ORDER
Thiru. J.JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant booked a cycle on 01.06.2010 with the opposite party to be transported to Mayiladuthurai. On 07.06.2010, he went to Mayiladuthurai Railway parcel office for taking delivery of the cycle and in the parcel office he was informed that the cycle would be delivered only on payment of wharfage charges at the rate of Rs.10/- per hour. He was not informed about the wharefage at the time of booking the cycle. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.56,87,853/-.
2. The opposite party filed version wherein he has stated as follows:
The cycle booked on 01.06.2010 at the parcel office at Thirumangalam Railway Station was received at Mayiladuthurai on 02.06.2010. The fact was conveyed to the complainant on 02.06.2010 itself and the complainant was informed about the rules and also free time regarding taking delivery of the cycle and the wharfage charges but the complainant went to take delivery of the cycle only on 08.06.2010 and he did not take delivery of the cycle paying wharfage charges. This complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum/ Commission and the complainant has to approach Railways Claims Tribunal as contemplated under section 13 and 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3
3. The points for consideration are;
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission?
(2) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? (3) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
4) Point No.1: The opposite party's counsel argued inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum/Commission and the Consumer Forum/Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the sections 13 and 15 of Railways Claims Tribunal Act 1987. Section 13 of the said Act is as follows:
Section 13. Jurisdiction, Powers and authority of Claims Tribunal-
(1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority, as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act,-
(a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administration as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for-
(i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-
delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway;
Section 15. Bar of Jurisdiction- On and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, 4 powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in (sub-sections (1) and (1-A) of section 13.
5. Therefore, in view of sections 13 and 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act 1987, the Consumer Forum/Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This is reiterated in the decision reported in I (2012) CPJ 380 (NC) of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case of "
Union of India Through General Manager, Northern Railway - Vs - Medical Systems & Services Through its Partner Mr.V.K. Monga.
6. Therefore, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. Therefore, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum/Commission and the point is answered accordingly.
8. Points No. 2 & 3: In view of the findings on point No.1, these points do not survive for consideration.
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. The complainant is granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority for seeking his remedy and the period from the date of filing of this petition i.e., 26.07.2011 till the date of receipt of copy of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of computing of limitation before the concerned authority.
J. JAYARAM, R. REGUPATHI,
JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
5
Documents filed by the Complainant side.
Ex A1 01.06.2010 Receipt issued by the opposite party for booking of cycle
Ex A2 01.06.2010 Copy of Ticket issued by opposite party for traveling
Ex A3 07.06.2010 Copy of ticket for travel from Cuddalore to Mayiladuthurai
Ex A4 16.06.2010 Copy of the ticket for travel to Trichy
Ex A5 25.06.2010 Copy of the letter sent by Opposite party/Trichy Office
Ex A6 02.07.2010 Copy of the letter written to Hon'ble Railway Minister
Ex A7 Copy of Medical Report
Documents filed by the opposite Party side:
Ex B1 30.06.2005 Copy of circular regarding the waiver of Wharfage charges
Ex B2 31.03.2010 Circular regarding duration of time for the delivery of
Goods
Ex B3 24.06.2010 Statement given by the duty officer of Mayiladuthurai
parcel office
J. JAYARAM, R. REGUPATHI,
JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
INDEX: YES / NO
TCM/Mdu Bench/Orders- 2013/August