SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1472

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DIVI.MGR – Appellant
Versus
CHANDRAN – Respondent
SC/32/A/194/2017



Petitioner Advocates:S.RENGANATHAN ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

KERALA

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/194/2017

DIVI.MGR

PRESENT ADDRESS - Southern railway , Palakkad, Kerala,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

CHANDRAN

PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Narayanan, Attayil house, Puthupally, P.O. B.P. Angadi, Tirur,

Malappuram,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO

DATED: 28/01/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.194/2017

ORDER DATED : 28.01.2026

(Against the in C.C.No.195/2014 on the files of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

##PAGE2##

SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Palakkad

(by Adv. S. Renganathan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Chandran, S/o Narayanan, Attayil House, Puthuppally, P.O.B.P. Angadi,

Tirur, Malappuram

(by Adv. Kulathoor L.R. Rahul)

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.195/2014 on the files of the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short, ‘the

District Commission’).

##PAGE3##

2. The complainant sent 10 articles to Tirur railway station from Tiruvaur in

Tamil Nadu on 29.09.2013. Out of the said 10 articles, 8 articles were received by the

complainant in good condition on 11.10.2013. One of the two articles reached the

railway station subsequently was an almirah, which sustained damage in transit.

Though notice was issued by the complainant, the opposite party neither replied nor

paid the value of the almirah.

3. The opposite party filed a version admitting the transporting of the articles

in the railway by the complainant. It was contended by the opposite party that out of

the 10 articles, 8 articles were collected by the complainant on 02.10.2013. The

remaining two articles did not reach the railway station on that date. Therefore, a

partial delivery certificate dated 02.10.2013 was given to the complainant. Thereafter,

the above said two items were received on 12.10.2013. The complainant was informed

about the arrival of the said items. However, the complainant refused to accept

delivery of the said articles. The opposite party sent a registered letter to the

complainant which was received by the complainant on 11.11.2013. However, the

complainant refused to take delivery of the said articles even after receiving the

registered notice.

4. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to

A5 were marked for the complainant. Exhibits B1 to B17 were marked for the

opposite party. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the

##PAGE4##

complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards

the deficiency in service, Rs.2,500/-as compensation towards damages for the loss of

articles, to the complainant. The opposite party was permitted to deduct the amount of

Rs.1,048/-, which was the wharf charge due to the opposite party, from the

compensation. The District Commission also directed the opposite party to pay

Rs.10,000/- as costs to the complainant.

5. Service is complete. However, there is no representation for the

respondent.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the

provisions under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the Consumer

Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for loss, destruction, damage,

deterioration or non - delivery of animals or goods entrusted with a railway

administration for carriage by railway. Admittedly, the contention of the complainant

is that out of the 10 articles sent by the complainant through the opposite party, one of

the articles wasdamaged. The above claim arose out of the transport of the goods

through the railway.

8. Section 13 of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top