PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER “Though passengers ought to be careful with their belongings while on trains, Railways too is liable to protect them” 1) The Respondent/Complainant Smt. Anjana Singh Chauhan was a head clerk in the Railways and was travelling from Bhopal to Nizamuddin on 04.02.2009, by Southern Express, Train No. 2721 occupying berth no. 76 in S-9 coach. She was going to Delhi for marriage settlement of her daughter. It was alleged that ,in early hours at about 2.00 am of 05.02.2009 at Mathura, some miscreants entered the bogie and snatched away her purse containing jewellery and cash worth Rs.1,63,066/-. She shouted and screamed for help, pulled the chain but no help came from the officials of the OP. She registered a case under IPC Section 279 at GRP, Mathura. FIR was also registered at the Nizamuddin Police Station. It was further alleged that due to the lapses and negligence of OP, the complainant filed a complaint No. CC/447/2009 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, ‘District Forum’) on 24.04.2009 and claimed Rs.1,63,066/-as losses suffered by her and other relief as per law. 2) The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay sum of Rs.75,000/- towards the loss occasioned to her, Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost to be paid within one month failing which the interest would be payable @ 9% per annum. 3) Subsequently, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘State Commission’) dismissed the First Appeal No. 2443 of 2010 filed by OP, modified the order of the District Forum to the extent by reducing the amount of Rs.75,000/- to Rs.65,000/- and maintained rest of the order. Hence, this revision petition was filed by the OPs. 4) We have heard the counsel for the parties, perused the records on file. There is a delay of 18 days in filing this revision petition. The OP furnished an application for condonation of delay. It appears the delay was caused due to some administrative formalities. In the interest of justice, the delay is hereby condoned. The counsel for OP submitted that the complainant was not a consumer, as she was travelling on a pass and she did not pay any amount for her journey. The counsel also denied that, the complainant travelled by said train in S9 coach at berth No.76 on her privilege pass no. E-167946. The counsel for OP/Petitioner in support of her defense produced, a computerized reservation chart dated 04.02.2009 and two affidavits of employees. It is surprising to note that after lapse of 5 years, at the stage of revision petition, these documents are filed. The OP should have produced cogent evidence and relevant affidavits before the District Forum or State Commission. We have perused the affidavit of Mr. D. T. Shankar Senior Ticket Examiner, who was on duty on the said train from Nagpur to Itarsi manning sleeper coaches’ No. 8, 9 & 10 on 04.02.2009. The Para of his affidavit runs as follows: “ Para 1: I had worked in train no. 12721 from Nagpur to Itarsi station in sleeper coaches no. 8, 9 & 10 on Date 04.02.2009. When train arrived at Itarsi station it was found that no TTE reported to work in sleeper coaches S-8, S-9 & S-10 between Itarsi to Jhansi. So I handed over the system charts to the outgoing Train Conductor.” Similarly, we have perused another affidavit of Deputy Chief Ticket Inspector, Mr. Bahadur Singh. His affidavit runs as follows: Para 1: I had worked in train no. 12721 from Jhansi to Hazrat Nizamuddin Station in sleeper coaches no. S-8, S-9 & S-10 between Itarsi to Jhansi. These all coaches were unmanned between Itarsi to Jhansi. Therefore, it is clear that the coaches No. S-8, S-9 & S-10 were unmanned between Itarsi to Jhansi and the berth number was shown as vacant. The Senior Ticket Examiner Mr. D. T. Shankar mentioned in his affidavit that, Para 2: The Passenger of berth no. 76 travelled from Secunderabad to Itarsi. The berth was vacant from Itarsi & the berth was not allotted to any passenger by me & berth no. 76 was shown as vacant. The passenger/Complainant boarded the train at Bhopal, occupied the vacant berth in coach S-9. It was an unmanned coach and no TTE from Itarsi to Jhansi was available. 5) We have perused the Amended Chart furnished by the OP for the sleeper class (S-9) coach dated 04.02.2009 which was handwritten by TTE on duty; it shows a specific entry at berth No.76 as “BPL- NZM, 167946” Thus, it establishes that, the complainant was travelling on S-9, 76 on that day. To misguide the Commission, the OP presented a Computerized reservation chart of 03.02.2009, which was prepared at Hyderabad, i.e. point of departure. Obviously, in the said chart the name of the Complainant will not reflect. As the complainant is a railway staff i.e. OP, hence accessibility and co-operation from TTE was quite possible and easy. The Complainant boarded the train at Bhopal, wherein she was allotted berth S-9 on her privilege pass. The theft took place in early hours i.e. around 02:00 a.m. on 05/02/2009 at Mathura Station. It would have been avoided, if the checking staff in the train GRP and RPF remained alert. The Complainant has filed FIR in Police Station, Mathura, which was not rebutted by the OP. The counsel for OP argued about the maintainability of complaint on the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum, as such the claim should be filed under Section 13 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act (RCTA). Also, it was an untoward incident, Section 124 A of The Railway Act, 1989 provides the compensation. But, a bare reading of Section 124A shows that it contemplates a situation where injury or death occurred. In this case on hand there was neither injury nor death was caused. Hence, the complaint was maintainable. We have relied on the judgment of this Commission in the case of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railways and Anr. v. Dr. K. K. Sharma and Ors., [200 (III) CPJ page 1 (NC)]. The gist of the judgment is that "existence of remedy provided by Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 did not take away the jurisdiction of the consumer courts to decide the question of deficiency of service. The consumer courts cannot sub-plant the jurisdiction of the Railway Tribunals or any other judicial or quasi-judicial body but can supplement the jurisdiction of these bodies in appropriate cases. It provides an additional remedy to a consumer". Similar view is fortified from following judgments of this commission. • Union of India and another vs. Sanjeev Dilsukhraj Dev and Others, 1986-2004, Consumer 7609 (NS). • Southern Eastern Railway vs. Kumari Bharti Arora, 1986-2004, Consumer 8331 (NS). • G. M. South Central Railway vs. Dr. R. V. Kumar and others, 1986-2005 consumer 967 (NS). • Divisional Railway Manager and Others vs. Dr. Abhi Shanker Officer, 1986-2006, Consumer 10115 (NS). 13. It is well debated throughout the country about the reality of railway passenger’s agony during traveling. Very often, the reserved compartments are studded with unreserved passengers, unauthorized people and even hawkers enter frequently. Most of the time, the on-duty TTE or the security staff avoids to visit such rush compartments. Most of the untoward incidents, like theft etc. go unnoticed or unreported to the concerned authorities. Even during the night hours, the reserved compartments are unmanned, the on- duty staff of train are never visible during the wee hours. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant herself being an employee of railway department; raised her voice against the safety concerns of her own administration. She has lost her hard earned money and the jewellery, keys, cash, mobile phones, etc., Hence, we cannot ignore the genuineness of her complaint. As regards the issue of negligence of OP, for the list of duties prescribed by railway administration "TTE for Sleeper Coaches", we have perused a document from the official website of http://www.indianrailways.gov.in, of these, duties prescribed at Sl. No. 4, 14, 16 and 17 are very relevant. These read as follows: "4. He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach guide them to their berth/seats and prevent unauthorised persons from the coach. He shall in particular ensure that persons holding platform tickets, who came to see off or receive passengers, do not enter the coach.” 14. He shall ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move and open them up for passengers as and when required. 16. He shall ensure that the end doors of vestibule trains are kept locked between 22.00 and 6.00 hrs. to prevent outsiders entering the coach. 17. He shall remain vigilant particularly during night time and ensure that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorised persons do not enter the coach". Hence, the TTE on duty was particularly required to take special care in the night as brought out in Sl. No.14, 16 and 17. Admittedly, in this case, the TTE has failed in the performance of his duties which lead to the incident of theft. We have referred the latest judgment, Union of India vs. Dr. Shobha Agarwal in III (2013) CPJ 469 (NC) decided on 22.07.2013 by Hon’ble Mr. Suresh Chandra of this Commission, who stated that: "One has to presume that a passenger would take reasonable care of his luggage. But he cannot be expected to take measures against intruders easily getting into reserved compartments and running away with goods when the railway administration is charged with the responsibility to prevent such unauthorized entry," Hon’ble Mr. Suresh Chandra, further expressed that, "We have entered the 21st century and we cannot carry on our daily life in the same age-old fashion with bearing brunt of indifferent service provided by public authorities like the railways." "People expect in the 21st century a modicum of efficient and reliable service, which provides at least the safety of a person and property while travelling in reserved compartments." 14. The OP rather should have been sympathetic to this complainant, but in our view, it was a deliberate attempt to harass its own employee. We see no reason to disagree with the well-reasoned findings of the State Commission which has modified the claim ordered by District Forum and therefore, uphold the same. The revision petition is, therefore dismissed with punitive costs of Rs.10,000/- which, OP shall deposit in the Consumer Legal Aid Account, of this Commission, within 90 days, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.