Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
MS. SALMA NOOR, MEMBER & MR. N.P. KAUSHIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER
RAVI SEKHAR - Appellant
Versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD - Respondent
First Appeal No. 2 of 2014
Decided On : 27-10-2014
The main legal point established is that a complaint alleging deficiency in service must directly relate to a service aspect, and evidence of the alleged deficiency must be present for the complaint to be maintainable.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Theft of Jewellery in Delhi Metro - The court dismissed the complaint of deficiency in service filed by the husband for the theft of his wife's jewellery in Delhi Metro, as the complaint did not touch any aspect of service directly or indirectly and there was no finding that the alleged theft had taken place.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's wife's jewellery went missing while they were traveling in Delhi Metro. The appellant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service by DMRC for failing to provide security to the passengers' property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint did not relate to any aspect of service and there was no evidence of the alleged theft. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed, and the appeal was deemed not maintainable.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged deficiency in service by DMRC and the maintainability of the complaint and appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the complaint did not pertain to any deficiency in service and there was no evidence of the alleged theft, leading to the dismissal of the complaint and the appeal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint and deemed the appeal not maintainable, ordering the return of any FDR/Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellant.
ORDER :
MR. N.P. KAUSHIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. We have heard Mr. Shakil Akhtar, Counsel for the Appellant.
2. In brief, the case of the Appellant/Complainant is that he was travelling with his wife in Delhi Metro on 2.11.2012 from Adarsh Nagar, Delhi to Anand Vihar, Delhi. He got down at Rajiv Chowk Metro Station to catch another train. Jewellery from the purse of his wife, Smt. Amrita Singh was found missing. The husband filed the complaint in the District Forum complaining that there was a ‘deficiency in service’ of DMRC. Contention of the Appellant for that it was the duty of the DMRC to provide security to the property of the passengers.
3. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the complainant did not complain in respect of any ‘service’. The complaint even did not touch any aspect of service directly or indirectly. Complaint was also dismissed on the grounds that the complaint was filed by the husband whereas the alleged victim of the theft was the wife. Matter relating to theft is still under investigation. CCTV footage was given to Metro Police by the DMRC. In the absence of any finding to the effect that the jewellery as alleged was stolen, the question of ‘deficiency in service’ could be gone into. The CCTV footage given to the Metro Police also did not show any theft having taken place. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the complaint is not maintainable. Appeal thus is not maintainable. The same is dismissed.
4. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
5. A copy of this order as per the 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.
