First Appeal No. A/11/450 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/02/2011 in Case No. CC/05/92 of District Thiruvananthapuram). Case: Divisional Manager, Southern Railway Vs Stalin Herald. Kerala State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. A/11/450 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/02/2011 in Case No. CC/05/92 of District Thiruvananthapuram)
Party NameDivisional Manager, Southern Railway Vs Stalin Herald
CounselFor Appellant: S.Renganathan, Adv. and For Respondent: Vazhuthacaud R.Narendran Nair, Adv.
JudgesShri.K.R.Udayabhanu, President
IssueRailway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 - Sections 13, 15; Consumer Law
Judgement DateNovember 24, 2011
CourtKerala State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Shri.K.R.Udayabhanu, President, (At Thiruvananthapuram)

  1. The appellants are the opposite parties/Railway Authorities in CC.92/05 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12% as the price of the lost articles and Rs.5,000/- as costs.

  2. It is the case of the complainant who is working in the Army that he transported his household appliances from Surat Garh to Thiruvananthapuram though the opposite party and that the same contained a brand new washing machine and other articles. Out of the 11packages entrusted he received only 7 packages. The matter was reported to the railway authorities. The estimate of loss is Rs.1,31,500/-. The brand new washing machine and two big boxes containing valuable household articles including dinner sets etc; were missing. There was no response from the opposite parties.

  3. In the version filed, the opposite parties/appellants have contended that although the complainant was directed to furnish the copy of Beejuck he did not do so. The original partial delivery certificate was also not produced. It is also contended that the Forum below has no jurisdiction as the jurisdiction is vested with the Railway Claims Tribunal established under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989. It is also contended that the complainant had not declared the value of the consignment and hence the liability of the opposite parties is confined to Rs.100/- per kg.

  4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. P1 to P8

  5. The Forum in the absence of documents produced to prove the price of the articles allowed only Rs.50,000/- instead of the amount claimed ie; Rs.1,31,500/-. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is with respect to the lack of jurisdiction. The counsel has also produced the unreported...

To continue reading

Request your trial