M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 470/2015

1. Chief Commercial Manager Railway Station Itarsi Junction

2. Chief Parcel Superintendent Western Central Railway Itarsi District Hoshangabad (M.P.)

3. D.R.M. Office through Incharge Near Habibganj Railway Station Bhopal (M.P.) ... Appellants VERSUS.

1. Pappu Kajode S/o Sukhman Kajode R/o Patel Colony, Bazar Tana Ghora Dongri Betul (M.P.).

2. Ranween Irparchey R/o Ghora Dongri Betul (M.P.) ….. Respondents BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI DEEPESH SHUKLA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS.

NONE FOR RESPONDENTS.

O R D E R ( 23.05.2025 )

Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.

This appeal by the appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘Railways’), is directed against the order dated 30.4.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No.191/2014, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by respondents/complainants.

2. Briefly put the facts of the case are that the appellants/complainants (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainants’), for earning their livelihood, had purchased certain items from various shops from Delhi and made two parcel of the same. On 24.2.2013 the complainants booked the said two parcels by Gondwana Superfast from Delhi to Itarsi but instead of landing the parcels at Itarsi it landed at somewhere else. The complainants gave intimation regarding non-receipt of parcels to Raiwalys and they assured that on finding the parcel they will inform the complainants. On 28.2.2013 the complainants got a call from Itarsi Railway station that one of the parcels has been received when the complainants found that the light weight parcel was received by them and the other parcel which was of heavy weight, containing electronic items and parts, worth Rs.1,84,000/- has not been received, they gave written complaints to Railways but they have not received the missing parcel. Therefore alleging deficiency on part of the Railways, the complainants filed the aforesaid complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The Railways resisted the complaint before the District Commission on the ground that the complainants are not their consumer, as they were doing business and the parcel booked by them are for the business purpose. It has been further stated that the complainants have paid only Rs.197/- and have not paid any additional charges, therefore, they are not entitled for any compensation. It has been further stated that before filing any complaint a notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code is necessary but no such notice has been given by the complainants. Thus, the Railways submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part in the instant matter and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission after appreciating the documentary evidence filed by parties, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Railways to pay Rs.1,84,000/- to complainants, with interest @ 7% per annum from 24.2.2013 till payment. Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1000/- for cost of litigation has also been awarded.

5. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the settled principle of law. The District Commission has failed to consider the documents and evidence of appellants/complainants, which clearly indicate, deficiency on part of the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the relief claimed by the appellant/complainant be granted in his favour.

6. Heard. Perused the record.

7. Section 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), are relevant to decide this appeal. Section-13 pertains to jurisdiction, powers and authority of Railway Claims Tribunal, which provides:-

“13. Jurisdiction, powers and