Haryana

Ambala

CC/124/2018

Smt Karum Rastogi - Complainant(s)

Versus

DRM - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Bansal

13 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                 Complaint Case No. : 124 of 2018

    Date of Institution    : 11.4.2018

     Date of Decision       : 13.06.2019

Smt. Karum Rastogi aged about 56 years wife of Shri Vimal Rastogi, R/o House No. 07, Bank Colony, Ambala City.

……Complainant.

Versus

1. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, D.R.M. Complex, Ambala Cantt.
2.  Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, D.R.M. Complex, Barelly (Uttar Pradesh).
3. Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi, through its General Manager.

……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Ms.  Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

                   Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member

Present:        Sh. Prashant Gupta, counsel for complainant.

 Sh. Nitesh Sahni, counsel for Ops.

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to the Ops.

1. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of goods of the complainant along with @ 12% interest from 21.1.2017 till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 21.1.2017 the complainant along with her husband boarded the train from Ambala to Bareilly in Lucknow-Chandigarh (Express train No. 12232 on seat/berth No. 10,11 in coach no. B-1). She purchased two tickets from Shurdha Communication, Ambala Cantt. by paying an amount of Rs. 3270/- for journey in the above said train. Thus the complainant has become the consumer of the opposite parties.  The complainant and her husband were travelling in the above said train very carefully and nice manner. She placed her goods in the above said train. When the train reached Roorki Railway Station then some vendors entered in the compartment and selling their goods. The above said train reached between Roorki and Laksar, the complainant  pointed out that something are missing from her belonging and then she thoroughly checked her all goods and found her pink colour hand bag missing. Since she suspect that when the train started from Roorki Railway Station, then someone has committed theft and stolen her pink colour hand bag containing one pair of gold tops, cash Rs. 2,500/-, one mobile phone having sim No. 085728-61669, train tickets purchase from Sudra Communication, other papers and  make-up goods. This incident was happened about 12.30 (night). When the train of the complainant reached at Bareilly Railway Junction, the complainant immediately got the matter reported to  the G.R.P. Barelly, upon which an FIR was got registered having case crime no. 2203 dated 22.12.2017 U/S 380 IPC.  The complainant sought the information under RTI Act from the booking  chart as the tickets of the complainant were stolen alongwith other articles contained in her hand bag for which FIR also registered. The complainant was informed that “ As per Railway rule the booking chart not maintained after 06 (six) months vide No. C-248/RTI/90051/UMB/17  dated 12.12.2017.  After registration of the FIR neither the Railway Police has taken any action in the matter nor any intimation was given to the District Police with regard to investigation of her case. The opposite parties were negligent in their duty as in the reserved compartment, there were vendors and persons without reservation present and freely roaming. The coach attendant and TTE were negligent in their duty assigned to them by Railway for safety of the passengers and their belonging. The conduct of the coach attendant and TTE was so negligent such that any prudent person would doubt their involvant with the offenders as they did not extend any help to the complainant and it is only when the complainant approached the higher officials on the net station, the GRP was called otherwise the entire matter would have been hushed up. The attendant of the coach flatly refused to help the complainant rather they connived with the burglar. Due to the negligent attitude and absolute-adherence to the safety measures, the complainant has suffered a loss. It was the duty of the railway staff to be vigilant and see that no untoward incident like theft in the train. The complainant cited many judgments in support of her case in the complaint itself. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false, frivolous, no jurisdiction, non-joinder the necessary parties as no contract between the complainant and Ops as the alleged tickets were purchased from Shurdha Communication, Ambala Cantt., as per section 100 of Railway Act Ops cannot be held liable, no cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has not placed on record ticket showing that she had travelled in the train of OPs when the alleged theft of her articles had committed and denied all allegations leveled in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as she has not suffered any loss due to OPs.  She is not the consumer of the OPs as no railway reservation ticket has been supplied by her to the OPs and the present complaint has been filed just to extract money from the OPs. It is wrong that many persons without reservation freely enter and exit in the concerned department.  There was no negligent attitude an absolute none-adherence to the safety measures and the complainant has not suffered any loss due to any negligence of the Ops. The complainant has got lodged false FIR. The alleged information sought under RTI Act by the complainant after expiry of 11 months itself shows that how the story has been cooked up and prepared the case just to bring the case within four corners of law. No chart of railway tickets or booking chart maintained after six months. The case law cited by the complainant are not applicable to this case as every case has its own facts and circumstances. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed her evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure OP-A and closed the evidence.  

4.                We have heard both the counsels of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                As per allegations of the complainant she had boarded Lucknow- Chandigarh Express Train No.12232 from Ambala to Bareilly on 21.01.2017 and many persons without reservations were freely entering and exiting in the compartment. When the train reached between Roorki and Lakshar, the complainant apprehended that some articles kept in her hand bag are missing then she checked thoroughly her pink colour hand-bag and found that one pair of gold tops, cash Rs. 2,500/-, one mobile phone having sim No. 085728-61669, train tickets purchased from Shurdha Communication, other papers and  make-up goods were stolen. This incident was happened at about 12.30 (night).  She immediately raised an alarm and intimated this matter to the TTE in the coach but to no avail and on her complaint FIR (Annexure C-1) was registered at GRP, Bareilly. But after registration of the FIR, police did not take any action. The Ops were deficient in providing service to the complainant and due to their negligence the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony, therefore, the Ops are liable to make the loss of goods on account of their negligence. 

6.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has argued that as per , Railways shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage against a receipt. In view of the complainant is not entitled to get any claim for the alleged theft which has occurred in the railway compartment because at the time of journey it was the liability of the complainant to keep the luggage safely and as per Constitution of India the responsibility for the safety and security lies with the Police Department of the State concerned, therefore, the Railways cannot be held liable for this mishap.

7.                After hearing learned counsels for the parties and going through the material available on the case it is clear that firstly the question require to be answered in the present case is, whether the opposite parties can deny their liability to compensate the complainant by relying upon ; and whether there is negligence on the part of the Railway Administration in providing measures whereby removal of luggage /purse by an intruder became possible? , 1989, reads as under:- Responsibility as carrier of luggage-A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration of non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefore, and in the case of 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.

                   Hon’ble National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition No.3574 of 2007  General Manager, South Central Railway & Co. Vs. Jgannath Mohan Shinde  and held the Railways liable to  make the loss good to the complainant alongwith compensation and cost of litigation.

8.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and discussion made above, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the Railway Department is responsible for the alleged loss suffered by the complainant on account of theft of their luggage.

9.                The complainant in her complaint has mentioned that in the stolen articles there were one pair of gold tops, cash Rs. 2,500/-, one mobile phone having sim No. 085728-61669, train tickets purchased from Shurdha Communication, other papers and  make-up goods and this fact also has been mentioned in FIR No.2203 dated 22.01.2017 (Annexure C-1).

10.              As regards to compensation, the complainant in the complaint has prayed for making the loss good but we took a slightly conservative view while holding that the complainant has not produced any independent evidence for the purpose of assessing the damages and compensation. In this regard one has to take note that the common men do not preserve the bills of each and every item to pile up unnecessary papers expecting that someday a theft may take place and he would be required to produce those documents. In ordinary course the affidavits should be accepted and acted upon keeping some margin of exaggeration of claims. In such a situation one has also keep in mind probable depreciated value of the articles lost.

11.              Keeping in view of the circumstances explained above as well as the facts that the complainant has suffered financial loss besides loss of agony, mental harassment, therefore, in order to meet the end of justice, we assess the loss which occurred to the complainants due to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops to the tune of Rs.30,000/- in lump sum. Accordingly, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.30,000/- in lump sum alongwith costs of Rs.3,000/- and further direct the OPs to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- within a period of two months jointly and severally after receiving the copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount would carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on:13.06.2019     

            (Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)                           (Neena Sandhu)

      Member                                       Member                            President