Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/315

RAILWAYS - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARVIND SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SH.B.S.LODHI

25 Jul 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 315 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 20.01.2017 passed in C.C.No.77/2013 by District Commission, Ujjain)

 

1. MANAGER, RAILWAY STATION,

    UJJAIN (M.P.)

 

2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

    WESTERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,

    RATLAM (M.P.)                                                                                                            … APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

 

ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL,

S/O SHRI SHIVPRATAP SINGH CHANDEL,

R/O 14, AMBER COLONY,

YANTRA MAHAL MARG, UJJAIN (M.P.)                                                                … RESPONDENT.

                              

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri H. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellants.

           Shri Pranay Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent.                

                

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 25.07.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                   This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘Railways’) is directed against the order dated 20.01.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ujjain (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.77/2013 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’).  

-2-

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the respondent along with his wife were travelling in ‘Dehradun Express’ on 16.12.2013 from Nagda to Hazrat Nizamuddin. The respondent was allotted berth no.7 & 8 in S-4 coach. It is alleged that during journey near Palwal Station, an unknown person stole the bag of respondent’s wife which was kept under the seat.  It is also alleged that there was no arrangement for safety of the passengers and security guard was also not available in the said coach. It is alleged that various jewelry items were contained in the bag/purse which was stolen and therefore alleging deficiency in service against the Railways, the respondent approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The opposite parties/Railways resisted the complaint on the ground that Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 states that the Railways are not responsible if the luggage carried by the passengers is not booked with them. The Railways also submitted that there is discrepancy in respondent’s pleadings in the complaint case filed by him with that of FIR since the respondent in his pleadings has stated that bag/purse was kept under the seat and was stolen but in the FIR it is stated that the bag/purse, which was kept under the head of respondent’s wife was stolen.  It is submitted that there has been no negligence or deficiency in service on part of the Railways and therefore the complaint be dismissed.

 

-3-

4.                The District Commission allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties-Railways jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,41,050/- to the respondent within two months, failing which the aforesaid amount is directed to be paid with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 25.08.2013, till payment.  Hence this appeal.

5.                Heard.  Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties/Railways argued that the District Commission has erroneously passed the impugned order when the respondent had failed to prove negligence or deficiency in service on part of the Railway Authorities. There are no specific allegations regarding unauthorized entry in the coach, by the respondent. The District Commission has also ignored that there is disparity and misrepresentation in the complaint filed by him before the District Commission and the FIR, which is available on record. Also, the bills on the basis of which the District Commission has decided the quantum are duplicate as there is no mention of any Tin number etc.  He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7116/2017 (Station Superintendent & Anr Vs Suender Bhola) decided on June 15, 2023, decision of National Commission in Zonal Manager/General Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.) & Anr Vs Purushottam Mohta I (2019) CPJ 335 (NC) and a decision of this Commission in Appeal Nos. 1192/2008 & 2172/2008 (Union of India Vs

-4-

Smt. Kanta Bhadoria & Smt. Kanta Bhadoria Vs Union of India) decided on 03.01.2020 to support his arguments.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that during journey, an unknown person stole the purse of respondent’s wife which was kept under the seat. He along with other passengers tried to catch him but he ran away. There were no arrangements for safety and security in the reserved coach. Therefore the Railway authorities are responsible for the loss caused to him as the bag contained precious jewelry items. The District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint. He argued that the appeal is without any merit deserves to be dismissed.

8.                The appellants-Railways in their reply have raised a specific plea that the respondent had not booked his belongings with the Railway Administration and therefore he is not entitled for compensation as per section 100 of the Indian Railways Act.

9.                This Commission in various judgments viz. First Appeal No. 910/2017 (Swati Vs Western Railway & Ors) decided on 08.02.2023, First Appeal No. 2142/2017 (Chairman Railway Board & Ors Vs Jai Prakash) decided on 16.02.2023, First Appeal No.2026/2017 (Smt.Dipika Vyas Vs General Manager, South Eastern Railway & Ors) & First Appeal No.71/2018 (General Manager, South Eastern Railway & Ors Vs Smt. Dipika Vyas) decided on 22.02.2023, First Appeal

-5-

No.1116/2017 (Smt. Swati Aseem George Vs General Manager, Western Central Railway) decided on 02.03.2023, First Appeal No. 28/2017 (Smt. Sunita Agrawal Vs Union of India Through Manager, Railway Station, Pune) & First Appeal No.49/2017 (Union of India Through Manager, Railway Station, Pune Vs Smt. Sunita Agrawal) decided on 19.05.2023 and First Appeal No.2070/2017 (Gurpreet Vs Union of India Through General Manager, Western Railway) decided on 01.06.2023 have dealt with the aforesaid issue elaborately.  Therefore, the Railways are not benefitted from the objection raised as aforesaid.   

10.              The opposite parties/appellants-Railways have raised a specific plea that the complainant/respondent has to prove negligence and deficiency in service on part of Railways in order to hold them liable to pay compensation.  The complainant/respondent has failed to establish the same, which is evident from the record of the District Commission.

11.              As we carefully go through the pleadings of the respondent in the complaint filed by him, we find that there is a categorical allegation that some unknown person had stolen bag which was kept under the seat, whereas the FIR lodged by him indicates that the purse, which was stolen, was kept under the head of the respondent’s wife. Also in paragraph 8(1) of the complaint, it is stated that an unknown person stole bag of respondent’s wife which was kept under the seat, whereas in paragraph 8(3) it is stated

-6-

that an unknown person stole the bag containing precious jewelry items which was kept under the head of the respondent’s wife.  The appellants-Railways had raised objection in aforesaid regard in the reply filed by them but the respondent has not specifically controverted the same in the counter affidavit filed by him.

12.              The District Commission has brushed aside the aforesaid objection stating that it appears to be a typographical error, without there being any explanation as such in this regard from the respondent.  In fact, in an affidavit of Shri Chandramohan Sharma which is filed in support of the complaint, there is mention of purse being kept under the seat in one paragraph and it being kept under the head of respondent’s wife in another paragraph. The bag having been chained if the same was kept under the seat has also not been pleaded by the respondent. There is apparent obscurity and vagueness in the case presented by the respondent.

13.              Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surender Bhola (supra) has held that:

“We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way a deficiency in service by the Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held liable.”   

                                

Hon’ble National Commission in Purushottam Mohta (supra) has held that the complainant has to prove any negligence on part of the Railway Officials in performance of their duty. It is also held that the

-7-

complainant ought to have taken sufficient safeguard to protect his suitcase from any possible theft.

14.              In the instant matter, clearly the respondent has failed to establish negligence or deficiency in service on part of the Railways.  He has not been able to prove that alleged theft had taken place due to neglect or laxity of the Railways.

15.              In view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set-aside.

16.              As a result, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

 

    (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)       (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                         PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER