As per Hon’ble President. Mr. Atul Alshi.

1.                               The complainant is filed this compliant against theft of ornaments in train and thereby seeking compensation for the loss of golden ornaments Rs.1,94,000/- alongwith interest 24% with compensation Rs.1,00,000/-, notice charges Rs.2,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation.  

2.               The complainant’s case is as under –

The complainant and his wife were coming after marriage of his cousin sister from Mathura to Nagpur  in train no. 12724 Telangana Express, Coach No.S-7, Berth No.15 having reserve ticket PNR No. 2447420944 on 25^th June, 2018, around 4:45 AM. some unknown person stolen complainant No. 2’s pink colour purse in which there were golden ornaments of 54 gms costing Rs.1,83,000/-, Aadhar Card, Driving license, ATM card, cash alongwith mobile. The complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,94,000/-. The complainant informed TTE and Railway Police after searching and also lodged FIR at GRP Police Station, Nagpur. The complainant sends legal notice on 19/07/2018 to OP to pay the compensation for loss of golden ornaments for not providing security guard or police at the time of journey. The OP did not comply therefore, the complainant filed this complaint.

3.               The OP No. 1 to 4 filed written statement and denied allegations and submitted that missing of belonging ornaments of passenger during time of journey did not deficiency in service because railway charge for fare journey and not for belongings of passenger. The railway administration is liable to pay compensation when the goods are entrusted to the railway administration by booking consignment and if there is theft, loss, damaged & destruction during the course of transportation the delivery then railway administration is liable to pay compensation u/s 13 & 14 Railway Claims Tribunal Act. As per Sec. 2 (14) of Railways Act “fare” means charges levied for carriage of passengers for journey. OP further submitted that there is no evidence of unauthorized person entered in coach. The other passengers in the coach did not report any complaint of theft in a coach or unauthorized person in train. The railway administration has provided safety hooks to lock luggage. The complainant was herself negligent in handling purse therefore she is responsible for loss of luggage. As per section 100 of the Railways Act 1989, the railway administration or its servants can be held responsible for the loss of the any luggage of the passengers only when the luggage booked by the railway servant and the receipt of the same is issued or when loss of luggage has caused due to negligence or misconduct of railway administration. The complainant loss luggage did not book hence the case deserved to be dismissed with cost.   

4.           The counsel for complainant submits that the complainant as soon as loss of golden ornaments made complaint with TTE and concern police station. After registration of offence and investigation the gold ornaments could not recovered till date. The OP is responsible for not providing police personal in his compartment to safeguard luggage of passenger and non availability of TTE. Therefore it is negligence for not providing security as per judgment of filed by the complainant. G.M.South Central Railway vs. R.V.Kumar IV (2005) CPJ 57 (NC).

5.               The counsel for OP argued that the railway administration charged for fare journey and not for belongings as per sec. 2 (14) of Railways Act, the railway administration, servant cannot be held liable for loss of luggage of passenger when the same are not insured. Therefore, the complaint is not tenable and may be dismissed. The counsel for OP relied on -

i) Supreme Court judgment SLP (Civil) No. 34738-34739/2012, Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Union of India.

ii)  Revision Petition No. 3992/2017, Zonal Manager/General Manager Bilaspur (C.G.) & anr. Vs. Purushottam Mohta, National Commission.

iii)   Revision Petition No. 590/2015 Chief Station Manager vs. Mamta Agrawal, National Commission.

iv)   FA No.582/2015 CCM vs. Omprakash Govindaram, State Commission Nagpur.

6. .               Heard both the sides. We have considered the following points and we have recorded our findings thereon as follows for the following reasons-

1. Whether the complainant is consumer ?                Yes.
2. Whether OP committed negligence and                deficiency in service ?                              No.
3. What order ?                             As per final order.

                          REASONING

7.               The complainant no. 2 belonging gold ornaments were theft on 24/06/2018 at about 4:45 AM. The complainant lodged the complaint before police authority and authority conducting police investigation. As per section 100 of the Railways Act 1989, the railway administration or its servants can be held responsible for the loss of the any luggage of the passengers only when the luggage booked and the receipt of the same is issued. In present case the gold ornaments, cash and other articles which are the subject matter of theft were not identified by any authority, with proof of possession, as the ornaments were not insured with railway administration. If the gold ornaments are insured identified by railway authority then in case of theft in journey the misconduct is on the part of OP and then the complainant can be indemnified, as per judgment passed by Supreme Court judgment SLP (Civil) No. 34738-34739/2012, Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Union of India as the luggage was not booked by petitioner in case of theft in journey. Hence, there is no liability of OP to pay compensation.

                 We, therefore, pass following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. No order for cost.
3. Copy of the order shall be supplied to all the parties free of cost.