Before  the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor                                         ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                               Complaint Case No.11/15.01.2019

Priyanshu Maheshwari

L-2 Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi-110001                                                                  ...Complainant

                                      Versus

DRM ©, Indian Railways,

New Delhi-110001                                                                  ...Opposite Party

                                                                   Order Reserved on:     20.01.2023

                                                                   Date of Order:             21.02.2023

Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

              Shri Vyas Muni Rai,    Member

              Ms. Shahina, Member -Female

Inder Jeet Singh,  

                                             ORDER

1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) : The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for allegations of deficiency in services as well as negligence of OP, the complainant travelled in rail from New Delhi Railway Station to AIT Railway Station via Jhansi against reserved seat, however, his Puma bag/luggage which was kept beneath the allotted seat, the luggage bag of Rs.5,999/- was bitten by rat during that rail journey. The railway administration was immediately informed in writing of the episode happened being negligence on its part, since it was duty of Railways for safe, secure and comfortable journey as well as safety and security of luggage of passengers.

         Whereas the opposite party opposes the claim that neither there was any deficiency in service nor negligence, apart from the claim is not tenable under the law. The Consumer Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction and also on the subject matter, since such issues are within the power of  Claim Commissioner to decide, being requirement of sec. 13(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989.

1.2:  In this case, parties had filed their pleadings but it is composite of pleadings, explanations, submissions, arguments that too in the form of outlines besides case law, with or without citations or even ratio of law laid down.  However, care has been taken to narrate the case of parties in simple way that they actually intend to plead and prosecute as well as to refer the issue point-wise, which were presented in the scattered way.

2.1 (case of complainant) : The complainant bought railway journey ticket bearing no. PNR 2711357781 from counter-window of  Indian Railways at Supreme Court of India campus for his peaceful and safe journey from New Delhi Railway Station via Jhansi towards AIT Railway Station and he paid Rs.285/- fare charges.  He was allotted seat no. 39 Coach S6 in train no. 11058 for journey on 27.04.2017 (Annex. 1 to the complaints). On 27.04.2017, he [with his luggage Puma back bag of cost of Rs.5999/-], boarded the train and kept his bag beneath the allotted seat allotted to him.  It was nearby before arrival at Jhansi Railway Station he noticed that his bag was bitten by rat during journey.  The complaint's bag was damaged. He informed AIT Station Master and also Konch Station Master about the damages happened during January. However, he was advised that he may put the issue later in the return journey,  since at that time the complainant was buying tickets towards Konch.   Then on 05.05.2017, the Complainant jot down the grievances in the  book-let (Annex-2)  that his luggage bag was bitten by rat during train journey and created hole in the bag, it was requested to investigate the matter. and consequently the concerned Contractor was imposed penalty of Rs.1000/– by Railways  on contractor for dereliction of duty (Annext-5, 3 & 4). However, the opposite party failed to settle the proper resolution in respect of complainant’s grievances to replace by new bag in lieu of damage caused, it amounts to negligence and deficiency in services on part of railways. That is why the complaint either to replace the bag or to pay its price of Rs.5999/- along with compensation on account of mental agony and documentation apart from to and fro for finding the justice.

2.2 :The complaint was annexed the documents apart from copies of railway ticket and during the proceedings details of invoice bill of luggage bag was filed that the complainant had purchased the bag.

3. (case of OP) : The opposite party protested the complaint that the consumer Fora at Delhi lacks jurisdiction on the subject matter, since the power lies with the Claims Commissioner u/s 13 (1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 as well as nothing had happened, nor any cause of action arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission,  since complainant noticed the damage at Jhansi Railway Station, Uttar Pradesh. Thus, the consumers Fora at Central Delhi does not have the jurisdiction. The ratio of 'Sonic Surgical case' applies to this case. Moreover, the complainant is not a consumer to be covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Mandatory notice u/ss 79/80 CPC prior to filing of the complaint was not issued. The complainant is bad for mis-joinder of opposite party. In addition, in order to curb the rodents, the full control of rodents is possible only by active cooperation of the passengers. The complaint deserves dismissal. The complaint is also opposed on merits, that there was no incident of damage to the bag by biting by rat, the complaint is false and frivolous. The matter pertains to Jhansi Railway Station, it is under investigation and if and when the finding comes, it will be informed to the Commission.

4. (Replication of complainant) :  The complainant filed detailed replication to the written statement of opposite party and complainant opposed allegations of written statement, apart from making certain explanation, citations of case law that the present consumers Fora has jurisdiction to try the complaint. The complainant also took exceptions to OP's plea in written statement to shift obligations on the others under the garb of cooperation of passengers to control rodent, whereas it is duty and legal obligation of opposite party to take care of safety of luggage and appropriate care during journey of the passenger. The complainant is a consumer, he is covered under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act and the present Fora has jurisdiction on the subject matter as well as it within the territorial jurisdiction. The opposite party is properly impleaded.

5.1 (Evidence of parties and submissions) : At this stage of evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit along with documents relied upon with the complaint, while supplementing the facts in detail about the episode happened to during journey. He also supplemented that Additional Commissioner Manager, Northern Central Railway, Jhansi Division had also issued direction to investigate the matter. As per the report of Mr. Kaushal Kishore, Divisional Mechanical Engineer (CNW), Jhansi Zone, had also found that there was negligence of Railway staff because of which damage had occurred to the complainant and he had also requested Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Coaching), Mumbai, CST Central Railway to issue directions to their concerned staff not to repeat the same in future.

5.2 On the other side, Shri Ashish Rai DGM/SS Northern Railway filed his affidavit of evidence, it is replica of written statement in compact form, while referring and relying upon the provisions of section 13 (1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and also sec. 79/80 CPC.  It is also emphasized that no incident of bitten of bag had happened and the complaint is false.

5.3: Both the sides, have filed their written arguments, followed by oral submissions and the same are on the lines of their pleadings and evidence.  During final oral hearing, it was contended as to under which PS the area of DRM (C) falls, the complainant had furnished in writing that even on receipt of information on telephone no.01123743084, the address of DRM (C ) was stated as State Entry Road, Paharganj, New Delhi, which comes within the area of this Commission.  The rival contention of the parties will be referred while dealing the issues invoved.

6.1: (Findings) : Of the contentions of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the statutory provisions of law, case law and material on record, since many issues have been raised on behalf of opposite party, it is appropriate to deal with them point wise.

6.2.: (Point of jurisdiction of subject matter)- According to opposite party, it is strictly within the power of the Chief Commissioner to deal with the issue of luggage and none else. Whereas, according to complainant, by virtue of law laid down in Deputy Chief Commercial, Manager Eastern Railways Vs Dr KK Sharma and others 2000 III CP 1 (NC), it was held that sections 13 and 15 of the Railways Act 1987 did not take away jurisdiction of the consumer Fora to decide question of services. It provides additional remedy to customers.

6.2A: The situation is considered. In Union of India vs  Sanjeev  Oil Sukhrai Dave 1 2003 CPJ 72 (NC), it was held that luggage may be those which were entrusted to Railways as carrier or it may be personal luggage carried by the passenger.  Secondly, there is no bar under the Railways Tribunal Claims Act, 1987 to  file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Thirdly, section 100 of the Act 2019 is also abundantly clear that provisions of the Act, 2019 are in addition to other laws in force and not in derogation thereto. Thus. it is clear that so far consumer disputes regarding services are concerned, the consumer forum has power to deal with such consumer disputes. Accordingly, it is held that the Consumer Commission/Fora has jurisdiction on the subject matter to try the complaint.

6.3.: (Point of territorial jurisdiction)- The other rival contention is on the point of territorial jurisdiction. According to complainant, he boarded the train from New Delhi Railway Station and reached his first arrival point and in between his luggage bag was bitten by the rat and it was damaged. Moreover, complainant explains that he enquired and discovered that the OP office is located at State Entry Road, Paharaganj, New Delhi, it is within the area of Police Station, Paharganj, New Delhi, which is covered within the Central District of this Commission, the present consumer forum has territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.

          Whereas, according to opposite party, the incident was within the area of Jhansi Railway Station, where complainant had noticed damage to his bag, thus the Consumer Fora at Delhi Central District lacks territorial jurisdiction. OP refers Sonic Surgery case to fortifies its stand on the point of territorial jurisdiction.

6.3A: By looking at the circumstances of episode, the complainant had boarded the train from New Delhi Railway Station and prior to reaching the Jhansi Railway Station, he found that his bag bitten and damaged by rat during journey. By boarding the train from New Delhi Railway Station and reaching at the destination, Jhansi Railway Station, there is a continuity of the journey,  the episode had happened in between departure place and the destinations, however, the opposite party is concentrating that in case the event was noticed at Jhansi Railway Station, then the jurisdiction will be within the area of Jhansi Railway Station exclusively.        Whereas in the situations like journey or series of events, the course of action will be treated in continuation places within the two points of journey  irrespective of fact as to where it was noticed. In Manju Kumar versus Indian Railways CC No. 260/2014 dod 19.10.2016 (NC), in that case of theft, the complainant had purchased a ticket from New Delhi, the train was also boarded from New Delhi Railway Station for Banglore and it was held that part of cause of action arose in New Delhi and Commission has jurisdiction to try the complaint. The circumstances of present complaint are not exception to it, therefore, this commission has territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Moreover, the office of OP is also situated within the jurisdiction of this Commission. On both counts, the plea of OP does not sustain.  Accordingly, this contention of opposite party stand disposed of.  The features of M/s Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company [Civil Appeal no.1560/2004 dod 20.10.2009], referred by OP,  are distinguishable from this case as in that case there was fire at a godown, which was a stationary place for the purposes of cause of action, apart from issuing place of insurance for the purposes of territorial jurisdiction.

7.3  (Issue of Notice u/s 80 CPC) : There is no legal requirement for legal notice u/s 80 CPC for complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  This plea of OP is not tenable.

7.4 (Whether OP is mis-joinder to the complaint?) : OP just took objection OP was mis-joined in the complaint, but how, it is not explained nor as to who would have been joined. It is just a hollow plea and it is decided against the OP.

7.5: (Whether or not complaint is a consumer?): There is rival plea as complainant contends that he is consumer since services were being rendered by the OP, whereas the OP denies the same.

7.5A: The answer of this issue lies in definition of 'service' under clause (42) of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which include 'transport services' specifically. Without need of further discussion, it is held that the complainant availed services of the OP, the complainant is a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

7.6 :  (Other issues) :  So far other aspects and features of the case are concerned, on one side the complainant complains of negligence & deficiency of services since his costly bag was bitten and damaged by rat during the journey, apart from that it is also question of safety and care of luggage & of passengers/public, who generally travel in the Rails. Whereas on the other side OP pleads strongly that it is false complaint as well as no event of damage to bag had happened, apart from the Railway Administration takes care of all of its obligation including to prevent rodents.  

7.6A:  On perusal of record, it is apparent that OP is taking paradoxical stand as on the one hand,  it states that it is a false and frivolous complaint, but on the other side it states that matter is being investigated at Jhansi and to apprise the Commission, if and when decision arrives there; no decision, if any, till date is apprised.  Moreover, the complainant was informed of imposition of penalty on the Contractor by the Railways, that record was already proved by the Complainant (as Annexure-5), then how it was a false complaint by the Complainant?. In fact OP is taking a frivolous plea against of Railway's own action & record.   The complainant has also referred Union of India Vs Anjana Singh case that though passenger ought to be careful with their belonging while on trains, Railways too is liable to protect them.

7.7.1:  Thus, the complainant has established his case against OP of negligence and deficiency in services to the complainant as his luggage was bitten by rat during his journey against booked ticket and he had kept his luggage/bag  underneath the seat allotted to him. Had there been no negligence or deficiency in services, there would be no damage to bag by the rat. The complainant is held entitled for price of his bag of Rs.5,999/-(round off to Rs.6,000/-) , which was damaged.

7.7.2:  The complainant is also seeking relief/compensation of Rs.30,000/- sufferings, inconvenience, to and for expenses and mental agony for this cause;  considering the circumstances as well as the complainant being practicing lawyer, the damages are quantified as Rs. 10,000/- in his favour and against the OP.

8: Hence, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP, to pay a sum of Rs.6000/- apart from damages of Rs.10,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

          In case OP does not pay the amount within  the aforementioned period of 30 days, then OP will be liable to pay interest @ 6%pa on amount of Rs.6,000/- from the date of filing of complaint till realisation of amount.    

9. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per Regulations.

10:  Announced on this 21st day of  February, 2023 [फागुन  2, साका 1944].