STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
Appeal No. 440 of 2011
1. General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur
2. Additional General Manager (Director of Public Grievances), E.C. Rly., Hajipur
3. Executive Director (Passenger Marketing), Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
… Appellants
Versus
Bhola Prasad Sinha (Retd. Statistical Officer), Advocate Civil Court, Madhepura, Resident of Mohalla- Krishna Nagar, (Jaipalpatti), Ward no. 12, Post Office- Madhepura, District- Madhepura (Bihar)
…. Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. F.R. Mallick
Counsel for the Respondent: None
Before,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
Md. Shamim Akhtar, Member
Dated 17.07.2023
As per Md. Shamim Akhtar, Member.
O r d e r
- The appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Madhepura in Complaint case no. 07 of 2005 by which and whereunder they have been ordered to make payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One lac fifty thousand) only to the complainant /respondent towards mental and physical torture.
- The case of complainant/respondent in brief is that the complainant-Bhola Prasad Sinha was travelling with his wife in train no. 3201 UP (Patna Kurla Express) on 26.03.2003/27.03.2003 having reservation ticket no. 36331627/6128784345 (PNR) reserved for berth no. 63-SL and 64-SL in S-4 (Boggy no. 01332 AB) and in course of journey by the said train, the briefcase of the wife of the complainant was stolen which was tied up with iron chain with berth no. 63 after breaking the chain in between Patna Junction to Mughal Sarai. Further, case is that the complainant informed the railway guard of the train at Mughal Sarai, lodged FIR at Mughal Sarai Railway Station and made correspondence to all authorities concerned but to no effect. Ultimately, a pleader notice was also given which was not replied and hence the complaint. In the complaint the complainant gave the value and also named the articles stolen and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Five lacs fifty thousand) only from the appellants.
- The appellants appeared and filed their written statement and ultimately the impugned order was passed.
- We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. It was submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and the Ld. District Consumer Forum has passed the impugned order without applying its judicial mind and there are contradiction of statement of witness regarding cash amount, Bank draft etc which were not considered by the Ld. District Consumer Forum and there is no basis for fixing compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the appellants and prayer is made to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
- Respondent/complainant has not appeared inspite of notice.
- The case of the complainant/respondent relates to theft in course of railway journey. In a case of similar nature of theft in course of railway journey, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 15th June, 2023 passed in Civil Appeal no. 7116 of 2017 (Station superintendent & Ors Vs. Surendra Bhola) has held that “we failed 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 railway can’t be held responsible”. The above decisionthe Hon’ble Supreme Court also covers the case of the complainant/respondent. In view of the said rule laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Md. Shamim Akhtar) (Sanjay Kumar,J)
Member President
Md. Fariduzzama
