Despite service no one appears for Respondent No.1, the Complainant and Respondent no.2, the Union of India. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. The Revision Petition, by the Indian Railways, assails order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.403 of 2003. By the impugned order, the State Commission has reversed the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, Hyderabad, in OP No.236 of 1997 whereby the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1, praying for a compensation of Rs.82,000/- for the loss of luggage while travelling from Pondicherry to Chennai by 2nd AC Sleeper on 22.05.1995 was dismissed. The State Commission has come to the conclusion that the said Respondent having established the factum of travel on the said date, the Railway Administration was liable to compensate him for the loss suffered. The State Commission has thus allowed the Complaint with costs of Rs.1,000/-. -3- In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay vs. Union of India & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 113 and a catina of decisions rendered by this Commission, wherein it has been held that a Complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Authorities, resulting in loss of luggage during the course of travel in a reserved coach is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned Counsel asserted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside as the State Commission has not given any basis for award of the compensation of Rs.82,000/-. We have perused the Written Version filed on behalf of the Railways, in opposition to the Complaint. We are of the view that having failed to contest the averment in the Complaint (Para 14) pertaining to the quantum of compensation at this stage, the Railways are estopped from raising such a plea. It has come on record that Respondent No.1 and his wife are Doctors and had gone to Pondicherry along with their children on vacation, and therefore, a claim of Rs.82,000/- (Rs.65,000/- for loss of two suit cases; Rs.9,000/- for two handbags and Rs.8,000/- in cash) cannot be said to be a highly exaggerated figure, so as to warrant our interference in -4- Revisional Jurisdiction, more so when the Complaint was filed sometime in the year 1997. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. |
