D.O.F:18/08/2021
D.O.O:01/09/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.139/2021
Dated this, the 01st day of September 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Mrs. Preveena Premdas, aged 29 years,
W/o. Vyshak Narayanan,
Rep: by her power of attorney holder
P. Narayanan Nair, aged 60 years,
S/o Kammaran Nambiar, Nelliyodan House,
Udaya Nagar, P.O Haripuram,
Pullur Village of Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod (Dist) : Complainant
(Adv: M.C. Kumaran)
And
- Chief Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Tower, Chennai, Tamilnadu: Opposite Parties
- Chief Divisional Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat.
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that she and her husband arrived at Nedumbassery International Airport on 08/02/2020 at 1 am. They went to Angamaly Railway Station on their way to Kanhangad in Malabar Express. Railway the Opposite Party allotted birth No: 39 to her and 40 to her husband in the AC compartment . Her further case is that she was carrying a shoulder bag kept near her during train journey. She set the alarm clock at 6 Am. The alarm rang by 6 pm. She woke up and came to know that her bag is missing. According to her she has kept valuable gold ornaments weighing 9.5 sovereigns and also her passport, ID card ATM card, 2 credit cards in the bag. She informed the police. Police registred Crime. No. 18/2020 of Railway police Kannur . She received the notice stating undetectable case by police . According to her under sections 100of Railway Act, railway is responsible for account of loss of luggage of a passenger and TTE is bound to ensure the safety by not allowing any introducers without the entry of an authorized person, the theft is not possible. Thus, there is negligence and deficiency in service from the part of railway due to which she suffered mental tension, agony, and shock. Therefore she sent a lawyer notice to Opposite Party dated 10/12/2020 but no reply. She claims compensation 20 lakh.
The Opposite Party filed their written version. The Opposite Party admits that the complainant and her husband and brother boarded the train from Angamaly to Kanhangad. But denied the alleged theft of the shoulder bag or that it contained valuable gold ornaments as alleged by the complainant. The Opposite party further denied that any un authorized person are allowed to enter the AC compartment by attender or TTE to take away the shoulder bag. Furthermore, the contention is that personal luggage is the responsibility of the passenger. Employees of Opposite party is vigilant. The claim is without any merit. Section 100 is not applicable unless the goods are booked specifically. The doors of the cabin were locked between 10 Pm to 6 Am. Hence sought dismissal of the complaint without costs.
The complainant through her power of attorney filed chief affidavit produced Ext A1 to A15 documents. Ext A1 is power of attorney Ext A2 to A5 tickets, Ext A6 is the reserved tickets showing birth number, Ext A7 is the original purchase bill, Ext A8 and A9 is the copy of purchase bill, Ext A10 is FIR, Ext A11 is the news daily, Ext A12 and 13 is the lawyer notice, Ext A14 and 15 is the postal acknowledgment.
Following points arise for consideration in the above case
a) Whether Opposite party is responsible for the loss luggages
b) whether complainant is entitled for compensation ? if so for what reliefs?
The averment in the complaint is that on 08/02/2020 the complainant was performing her journey from Angamali to Kanhangad in AC coach berth No. 39 and 40 in Malabar Express. Complainant kept her bag which contained gold ornaments and passport bank records etc gold ornaments alone quantity in 9 ½ sovereigns. She duly filed police complaint but un dectected. Her case is that Railway is responsible for the loss/damage suffered by her and hence she is seeking compensation.
The Opposite party appeared through lawyer and denied the allegations. The Opposite party contended that as per provisioning of section 100 and 103 of Railway Act, 1989 and as per provisions of section 13 (1) (a) of Railway claim Tribunal Act, 1987, the complaint is not maintainable.
Section 100 of the Railway Act 1989 reads thus; “ 100 Responsibility as carriers of luggage:- A railway administration shall not 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 therefore and in the case a 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”.
“103 extent of monetary liability in respect of any consignment – has not been declared as required under subsection (2) by the consigner, the amount of liability of the railway administration for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of the consignment shall in no case exceed such amount calculated with reference to the weight of the consignment as may be prescribed, and where such consignment consist of an animal, the liability shall not exceed such amount calculated with reference to the weight of the consignment as may be priscribed, and where such consignment consist of an animal , the liability shall not exceed such amount as may be priscribed.
Section 13 of Railway Act claims Tribunal Act 1987 reads thus:- Passengers are expected to take care of their personal luggage, but when one travels in a reserved compartment then naturally a duty is imposed upon servants of the Railway to take care of such passengers and their personal luggage, because un authorized entryin such reserved compartments are restricted and no one can enter in such reserved compartments unless permitted by TTE. In chief station manager south East Central Railway and others Vs Mamtha Agarwal, IV (201) CPJ 125 (NC) H’ble National Commission has observed thus:-
The main ground taken by the Railway is that under section 100 of the Railway Act 1989, a Railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction , damage deterioration or non-delivery of luggage, unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and gave the receipt and in that case also, it should be proved that such loss damage etc was due to negligence or misconduct on the part of servants of the railway and hence, the provisions of sections 100 of the Railway Act, etc are applicable in the matter. Union of Inida and another Vs Anjana Singh chawhan, IV (2014) CPJ 198 (NC). Therefore in our view in the present case there no negligence attributable to any specific employee”
On the basis of above judgment it is established that the complaint herself did not take proper care for security of her bag and kept near her. Perusal of provisions of section 100 of the Railway Act 1989. It appear that the railway administration shall not be responsible to compensate unless and until, it is proved by the complainant that the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of any luggage was caused due to negligence or mis conduct on the part of employee or servants of the Railways.
In the fact and circumstances of the case it appears that if any incident of theft happened due to the negligence of the complainant herself is liable for the same, therefore the complainant is not entitled to any compensation from the Opposite party.
In the result complaint dismissed but without costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Power of attorney
A2 to A5 – Tickets
A6- The reserved tickets showing birth number
A7- Original Purchase bill
A8 & A9 – copy of purchase bill
A10 – FIR
A11 – News daily
A12 & A13 – Lawyer Notice
A14 & A15 – Postal Acknowledgment
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
