JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) 1. Arguments heard. 2. The complainant, Smt. Anchal Garg was travelling in Train No. 4265-Janta Express on 8.8.2009 from Lucknow to Dehradoon in Sleeper Coach No. S-6, berth No. 17. In the morning of 9.8.2009 at about 5.30 a.m., when the train had reached between the Kath and Seohara, some unknown thieves snatched the gold chain valuing Rs.30,000/- from her neck and also took away her hand bag containing two mobiles, Two ATM Card, one PAN Card, cash of Rs.2,000/-, advocates registration, TATA AIG licence and journey ticket. It is contended that some unauthorized persons entered the reserved coach, TTE did not stop the said persons from entering in the reserved coach and the door of the coach was not closed. The complainant immediately made a complaint to the T.T.E. but he took no action. Ultimately the complainant lodged an FIR with GRP, Dehradun but her goods were not recovered. Consequently, she lodged a complaint with the District Forum against the petitioners/opposite parties. 3. The District Forum heard both the parties and ordered that compensation in the sum of Rs.52,000/-, Rs.10,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation be paid to the complainant. 4. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission deleted the amount of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and granted a sum of Rs.42,000/- alongwith interest@7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. It is thus clear that both the fora have decided the case against the petitioners, Indian Railways and others. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. He vehemently argued that it was the duty of the complainant to take care of her goods. She did not care to get her goods booked with the Railway Department. She did not make use of chain in order to stop the train then and there. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the authority titled as Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Union of India and others decided on 2.7.2013 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (civil) No(s) 34738-34739 of 2012 by the Apex Court. 7. We have perused the judgment but the facts are entirely different. In that case, the complainant was allotted berth No. 41 in sleeper coach No. S-2 and he had voluntarily placed his attachcase on berth No. 43. The apex Court was pleased to hold that under the circumstances, the Railway cannot be held responsible for the alleged loss of attachcase by way of theft or otherwise. This authority provides no help to the Railway Department. The complainant was carrying small luggage and there was no need to get it booked with the Railway Department. It is difficult to fathom as to how one lady can face two or three culprits. A person is particular about his own life and not the luggage he or she is carrying. At that moment, a person becomes buzzled/confused and scared and the idea of using the emergency chain may occur or may not occur. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as under: “100. Responsibility as carrier of luggage.- A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefor and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants.” 9. We are unable to locate substance in these arguments. The complainant has specifically stated that she immediately made a complaint to the T.T.E. but turned a deaf ear. No affidavit of concerned T.T.E. saw the light of the day. Again, the door of the coach was not closed. Under the circumstances, a doubt creeps in whether people like TTE work in cahoots with those culprits. It is also difficult to fathom why she had to wait upto Dehradun. Nobody came to her rescue. It is clear that the Railway Department is terribly remiss in discharge of its duty. The complaint made to the TTE was just like talking to a brickwall. 10. The last argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that it is the duty of the State to take care of the passengers carries no conviction. State means State police, GRP and Railways. They have to work in coordination. The revision petition is devoid of merits and as such it is dismissed. | 
