GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI Vs. T K THOMAS, ADVOCATE AND ANR
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-10-1
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 24,2009

General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai Appellant
VERSUS
T K Thomas, Advocate And Anr Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY VS. MRS A SHAMEEM [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)BY the order dated 14/10/05 in OP 350/03 the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/ - wiihm 2 months from the date of order failing wliicli the amount would carry 9% interest per annum from the date of default. A sum of Rs. 1,000/ - is also ordered as cost. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.
(2.)THE complainants had approached the Forum with the grievances that they had travelled to Chennai on 14/5/03 by train No. 0604. They had taken the return ticket also and the purpose of journey was stated as consultation with Dr. Bashi at MIOT Hospital, Chennai for conducting a bypass surgery for the 1st complainant. It was also stated that a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - was kept in the luggage along with medical records including the Angiogram test result from Medical Trust Hospital, Cochin. The complainants had alleged that during their journey to Chennai at about 4.30 a.m. next day they found that their luggage was stolen and even though he had intimated to railway employees, the employees treated the matter in an absent minded manner. Though on 15/5/03 also a detailed complaint was filed by the complainants to the Police at Chennai Central Railway Station nothing had been done to trace out the stolen luggage and alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 43,608/ - on various heads with interest at 18% per annum till the date of payment.
(3.)THE opposite party entered appearance and contested the matter by filing version wherein it was stated that the exaggerated story of the complainant was not believable and that under Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989 they were not liable for the loss of luggage carried by the passenger and further that the lower Forum had no jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Pleading that there was no deficiency of service and the complaint was not maintainable they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the 1st complainant and a witness and Exts P1 to P8 on the side of the complainants. A TTE of the opposite party was examined as DW1. It is based on the evidence and the circumstances of the case that the Forum below passed the impugned order directing to the opposite parties to pay the amounts aforesaid.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.