State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Chief Claims Officer Sc Railway, vs Joseph Stalin on 31 October, 2023
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYD ERABAD.
FA.NO.839 OF 2020
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.33/2014, DISTRICT CONSUMER
COMMISSION, NIZAMABAD
Between:
1.Chief Claims Officer, S.C Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
2. Chief Parcel Supervisor, S.C Railway, Nizamabad RS .....Appellants/Opposite Parties And Joseph Stalin, S/o Arockiasamy, aged 40 years, Occ: Working as Clerk, R/o City Union Bank Ltd., Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad.
.... Respondent/Complainant Counsel for Appellants/Opposite Parties: M/s Vijaya Sagi Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Notice served QUORUM:
HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER-JUDICIAL TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ******* Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon'ble I/C President)
1. This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Nizamabad dated 12.06.2020, made in CC No.33 of 2014, by allowing the appeal and pass such order or orders which may this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The facts in brief are that the complainant is working as a clerk in City Union Bank Limited, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad. He was transferred from Dindigul to Nizamabad and availed the 2 Railway Parcel Service for the transport of his household articles among other things. He claims to have booked the articles on 18.04.2013 and although it should have reached Nizamabad within a day or two, the delay was inordinate and on 28.04.2013 he brought it to the notice of the Deputy Commercial Manager, NR Department, Southern Railway, Secunderabad and the Deputy Commercial Manager, NR Department, Southern Railway, Madurai vide his representation dated 09.05.2013. Thereafter, only three articles i.e. fridge, washing machine and bike bearing No.TN 57 Q 2905 were delivered and the rest of the articles in as many as 8 boxes and poly bags were not delivered.
4. Since his household goods were not delivered he was constrained to issue legal notice dated 18.05.2013 to the Southern Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai; the Deputy Commercial Manager, NR Department, Southern Railway, Secunderabad and the Deputy Commercial Manager, NR Department, Southern Railway, Madurai. He received a call on 02.07.2013 from the Nizamabad Railway Parcel office that his household articles had arrived and to collect them. He submits that the articles were dumped in plastic drums and poly bags and he has filed photographs to prove the damaged conditions of the items. Despite his representations seeking compensation, there has been no response from the Opposite Parties to grant him any relief. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the reliefs as prayed for.
5. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 i.e. the Chief Claims Officer and the Chief Parcel Supervisor filed their written version on the following paras -
(a) The complaint is not tenable under Sec.79 CPC since the Union Bank of India was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings.
(b) The Forum is not vested with the jurisdiction to settle the complaint in view of Sec.13 r/w Sec.15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987.
6. They admit that the complainant on 18.04.2013 booked one bike bearing No.T.No.5712105, 10 cartons and 2 poly bags from Dindigal to Nizamabad. Out of the 13 consignments, 3 packages i.e. Motorcycle, fridge and one carton was delivered to the complainant at Nizamabad on 05.05.2013. The remaining 10 3 packages were delivered on 30.06.2013 and the complainant took delivery only of 9 parcels and refused to take delivery of the balance 8 packages. They also admit that there was a delay in delivery owing to operational constraints and due to non- availability of direct connections from the point of booking to point of destination. The complainant is claiming an amount of Rs.8,63,600/- when he had not declared the value of the consignment at the time of booking. Except for the value of the Motor Cycle for Rs.40,000/-, no other valid declaration was made and as per the provisions of the Sec.103 of Railway Act 1989 they can settle the claim only @ Rs.50/- per kg. With these submissions, they seek dismissal of the complaint.
7. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A17 are marked on his behalf. The Chief Booking Clerk of Opposite Party filed evidence affidavit as RW-1 and no documents were marked on their behalf.
8. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum as stated supra in para No.1, the Appellants/Opposite Parties filed this appeal contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:
Numerous issues have been raised by the Appellants, the sum and substance has been stated below in brief:-
(i) The complaint is bad in law as UOI is not impleaded as a party
(ii) Sec.13 read with Sec.15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 clearly ousts the jurisdiction of all other courts in so far as compensation towards loss/damage of goods/parcels.
(iii) The District Commission failed to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No.7142 of 1995 between Chairman, Tiruvalluvar Corporation Vs Consumer Protection Council decided on 09.02.1995 and further failed to consider the damage certificate signed by Chief Parcel Supervisor/Consignee.
(iv) The Commission below failed to take into account that the complainant refused to take delivery of the 8 packages lying at Nizamabad Station and did not request for joint assessment of extent of damage.4
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
10. We have heard the arguments of counsel for the Appellants and since the Respondent has been continuously absent, his arguments are treated as heard and perused the order of the District Commission and the material placed on record.
11. The admitted facts of the case on hand are that:
(i) The complainant availed the Railway Parcel Service for the transport of his household articles. 13 consignments were booked which included Motor Cycle and fridge.
(ii) Admittedly, the booking was made at Dindigal town to Nizambad on 18.04.2013.
(iii) Out of the 13 consignments, only three package which being the Motor Cycle, fridge and one other carton were delivered to him on 05.05.2013.
12. The complaint is raised stating that the delay in delivery was inordinate and he had to make representation to the Deputy Commercial Manager, NR Department, Southern Railway, Secunderabad and the Deputy Commercial Manager, NR Department, Southern Railway, Madurai for the delivery of his consignment. Moreover, despite his representation and follow-up, only three consignments were delivered to him and the remaining parcels reached the destination only on 02.07.2013 and were completely damaged.
13. The Appellants/Opposite Parties have steadfastly urged that the complaint is not maintainable and neither does the Commission have the juristic powers to entertain the present complaint. In their pleadings, they admit that there was a delay in receiving the consignment at Nizamabad Station and this is owing to the operational constraints due to non-availability of direct linking train from the booking station to destination station.
14. The complainant has relied on Ex.A1 the Parcel Way Bill for transporting his articles from Dindigal to Nizamabad and under description of articles, it is recorded as follows:
513 - Ten CBBOS Two Polybags 1 - Motorcycle TN 57 Q 2905 A total sum of Rs.2,520/- was paid.
15. The Way Bill is issued by the Parcel Office, Southern Railway Station, Master - Dindigal Jn., date of booking is 18.04.2013.
When the Southern Railways Parcel Office issued a Way Bill, the rules of the way bill will apply.
16. As per provisions in Sec.106 of the Railway Act 1986, claims for non-delivery or partial delivery or damage of consignment has to be filed within six months from the date of booking of the consignment. After expiry of the period of 6 months, the case becomes time barred and are generally not entertained in order to achieve the objectives of better service to customers. The Indian Railways have established "Not Received Cell" at Divisional and Zonal levels. The duty of these cells involves the tracing and connecting of consignments which do not reach the desired destination within reasonable transit - time. The complainant has taken the necessary steps and contacted the NR Cells of Southern Railway at Secunderabad and Madurai on 09.05.2013.
17. The consignment was booked on 18.04.2013 and the complainant was naturally perturbed when it did not reach within the reasonable transit and time.
18. The Appellants/Opposite Parties have only urged that the UOI was not made as a party and Sec.13 r/w Sec.15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act 1987 was not properly considered by the Commission below.
The relevant Section is reproduced below:
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 administrations 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 6 administration for carriage by railway; (ii) compensation payable under section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder;
and (b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway. 1 [(1A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration under section 124A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder.] 2 [(1B) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017 (7 of 2017), the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on the Tribunal under Chapter VII of the Railways Act,1989 (24 of 1989).] (2) The provisions of the 3 [Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989)] and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act. 14. Distribution of business amongst Benches.--(1) Where any Benches are constituted, the Central Government may, from time to time, by notification, make provisions as to the distribution of the business of the Claims Tribunal amongst the Benches and specify the matters which may be dealt with by each Bench. (2) If any question arises as to whether any matter falls within the purview of the business allocated to a Bench, the decision of the Chairman shall be final.
Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression "matters" includes an application under section
20.
15. Bar of jurisdiction - On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in 4 [sub-sections (1), (1A) and (1B)] of section 13.
19. A keen reading of the relevant Section clearly emphasizes that compensation is liable to be paid for the loss, destruction, damage for non-delivery of articles or goods entrusted to the Railway administration for carriage by railway. Whether this Section precludes the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commissions needs to be discussed and elaborated upon. It has been repeatedly settled by the Hon'ble National Commission and lately in 7 R.P.No.1955 of 2015 decided on 15.07.2022, it has been again reiterated that the establishment of Claims Tribunals under Act 1987 does not in any way infringe upon or later the additional alternative remedy available to the consumer to seek remedy by instituting a consumer complaint apropos deficiency or unfair trade practice before the Consumer Commission. The root point that requires adjudication is whether the provisions of Sec.106 have been infringed upon and if so what should be its consequential effects based on the evidentiary value and merits of the complaint.
20. The District Commission in their order has referred to and discussed the letters Ex.A9 and A10 - dated 02.07.2013 and 03.07.2013 addressed to the Parcel Officer, Nizamabad and Chief Claims Officer - South Central Railway, Secunderabad claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the missing and damaged articles. The Chief Claims Officer, Secunderabad has replied vide Ex.A12 dated 12.07.2013 - requesting the complainant to send the "shortage certificate" issued by CGSR/NZB to process the claim.
21. The fact that the consignment was delivered at the destination - Nizamabad with an inordinate delay is not in dispute and the fact that the complainant did not receive his consignment in proper condition is also not in dispute. There is visible negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and they have apparently not taken the necessary precautions and care in transporting the consignment despite having been entrusted with the duty.
22. Additionally, it is most unfair to take recourse to any provisions as may be theoretically existing if the same is not informed to the consumer/complainant upfront at the time of booking consignment. The way bill is a document that provides specific information such as origin, destination, transportation route and should also contain the "condition of contract of carriage". There is no question of entrusting the consignment to the Railways/Appellants/Opposite Parties and getting the receipt thereof, if such damage and delay cannot be accounted for. They are to be held responsible and the Respondent/complainant has taken all the steps and care as expected of a prudent person. This omission on the part of the Opposite Parties/Appellants/Railways 8 can be said to be gross deficiency in service and negligence and the District Commission has rightly imposed the liability on them and we see no reasons to interfere with a direction given in the impugned order.
23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER-J
Dt: 31.10.2023
BS*