JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties/Railways in C.C. 186/09 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,45,928/- with interest at 9% from 19.05.08, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.The case of the complainant is that 375kgs of copper wire packed in 5 gunny bags and entrusted with the opposite parties at Selam Junction to be delivered at Ernakulam town Railway Station was not delivered. On representations made only a sum of Rs. 18,052/- sanctioned for the loss of the goods worth Rs. 1,48,026/- He had received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as advance from the consignee. He has claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lakh as compensation.
The opposite parties have filed version contending that the details of the consignment and the individual value was not declared. In case of declaration of the value transportation charges on percentage basis vide section 103(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and Rules thereon had to be paid. It is further contended that the complaint is not maintainable vide Section 13(1)(a)I and Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. 1987. If at all the complainant is entitled for compensation vide Sec. 103 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Rule 3(1)III of Railways (Extent of monitory liability) and prescription of percentage charge) Amendment Rules 2009 only @ Rs. 50/kg is liable to be paid which has been ordered to be paid ie. Rs. 18,052/-
Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Pw1 and Exts. P1 to P7.
The Forum has noted that as per Ext. P1 Railway Bill, it is mentioned as 5 gunny bags of copper wires and the weight of the articles as 375kgs and the charge paid as Rs. 465/- It is not disputed that the parcel was not delivered. The contention as to jurisdiction was rejected on the ground that Section 3 of the C.P. Act provided for an additional Forum. It is also noted that there is no direction in Ext. P1 that the value should be declared. But hence the complaint was allowed as claimed.
The counsel for the appellants has stressed the contention that the Forum is not having jurisdiction as vide Section 13(1)(a)I and Section 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The exclusive jurisdiction in this regard is vested as the Railways Claims Tribunal. Evidently as per the above provisions in the Railways Claims Tribunal is having the jurisdiction with respect to the matters specified in Section 13. The same is evident from the discussion in Gulshan Kumar Mendiratta Vs. Union of India 1 (2011) CPJ 268(NC). But we find that the opposite parties have not pressed for an order on the preliminary issue. Further the opposite parties have contested the matter on merits and have cross examined Pw1, thereby conceding the jurisdiction of the Forum. In view of the above circumstances, we find that the appellant/opposite party is not entitled to go back to the preliminary issue that too after the Forum has considered the evidence and passed an order on merits.
We find that the contention that the Forum has no jurisdiction is the only contention raised herein which cannot be entertained at this stage.
All the same, we find that the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is not called for as the Forum has directed to pay interest on the amount ordered to be paid. Hence the order to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is set aside. The rest of the order of the Forum is sustained.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above.
The office will forward the L.C.R. to the Forum along with copy of this order.