Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/123

Vikas Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager Northern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan Kumar

21 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                      123 of 2019

Date of Institution:          03.05.2019

Date of Decision :              21.10.2019

 

Vikas Jindal aged about 40 s/o Sat Pal Jindal  r/o B-V/433, Gali Loharan Wali, Near Dr Brar Nursing Home, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

.....Complainant

Versus

1. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. Northern Railway, through Divisional Manager, Ferozepur.
3. Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Faridkot.

                                                 ........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

 

Present:      Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                   Sh Sandeep Khosla, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs.10,999/- as price for snatched

cc no.-123 of 2019

mobile and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                                                 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant alongwith his family and friends made plan to go to Shirdi Sai Mandir at Shirdi, Maharashtra and got booked seats in train no.12138 for 22.12.2018 and they reached Manmard on 24.12.2018. Complainant also got booked seats for return from Igatpuri to Faridkot for 26.12.2018 in train no.12137 Punjab Mail. Scheduled time for train to reach at New Delhi was 21.15 and departure time is 21.50 p.m. after 35 minutes stay. Train was late by one hour and when it arrived complainant and his family occupied the booked seats and thereafter, train left New Delhi and when it was leaving the Kishanganj station, speed of train was slow, complainant converted his seat into bed and took out his mobile for setting alarm, but at once one unidentified person snatched his mobile and jumped out from the train very fastly. Complainant immediately searched for coach attendant, but neither coach attendant nor any guard was available there. Even no TT or care taker of the coach was available there. After 20 minutes, two guards arrived and complainant narrated entire incident to them and got lodged FIR in train. It is submitted that it is the duty of coach attendants to check the tickets of all passengers present in coach and to prevent any unauthorized entry and to ensure that number of passengers do not exceed the carrying capacity. It is

cc no.-123 of 2019

also the duty of coach to keep the doors of train closed during its running and to remain  vigilant particularly at night, but employees of OPs did not perform their duty rightly and were negligent during working hours. Complainant made several requests to Ops to help him find out his mobile phone or to pay the price of same as it was lost due to deficiency in service in not providing security during the journey but to no effect. It is further submitted that complainant got booked and purchased the ticket for travelling in said train from OP-3 that comes under the jurisdiction of this Forum and FIR to this effect was also lodged in train. Complainant made several requests to OPs to redress his grievance, but all in vain. All this act of Ops has caused great loss and mental agony to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and he has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3                                                    The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 8.05.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                               Ops appeared through counsel and filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant purchased his alleged mobile on 28.08.2017 for Rs.10,999/- and it was being used by him till said snatching incident and till then value of his mobile phone was

cc no.-123 of 2019

not more than Rs.2000/- and therefore, claim sought by him is not tenable. He has not produced any document to show that he purchased new SIM card and he also did not make any report to Mobile Company of which SIM Card was inserted. Complainant has not mentioned that which mobile number was being used by complainant at the time of said snatching incident and there  is no document to show that his mobile was under activation in the area of Delhi and no call detail or tower location record of mobile handset is shown by him. It is further averred that at the time of said alleged incident, many passengers were available in the train, but nobody came forward to help the complainant and his complaint is not supported by any other passenger. No hue and cry was made by him nor did he pull the chain to stop the train at the time of said alleged snatching incident. Complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring lengthy evidence which is not permissible in the summary procedure of this Forum.  They have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has suppressed the truth and have concealed the material facts and said incident occurred due to negligence and carelessness of complainant for which OPs are not liable. It is further averred that offence has taken place near Delhi and therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. It is asserted that complainant has concocted the entire story and has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is also denied that doors of compartment were open, rather doors were latched and

cc no.-123 of 2019

bolted from inside. It is also denied that some one snatched his mobile. However, it is admitted that complainant got recorded FIR to this effect in train but said FIR is incomplete and is not reliable. It is asserted that all the employees of OPs perform their duties well and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Allegations regarding loss suffered by complainant are also totally refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

5                                  Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                       Ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Vivek Sharma Ex OP-1 and then, also closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7                                        We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and have carefully gone through the  documents placed on record by complainant.

8                                      Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant got booked seats for himself and his family members for going to Shirdi Sai Mandir at Shirdi, Maharashtra through train no.12138 for 22.12.2018 and they reached Manmard on 24.12.2018. He also got booked seats for return from Igatpuri to Faridkot for 26.12.2018 in train no.12137 Punjab Mail. Scheduled time for train to

cc no.-123 of 2019

reach at New Delhi was 21.15 and departure time is 21.50 p.m. after 35 minutes stay. Train was late by one hour and when it arrived complainant and his family occupied the booked seats and thereafter, train left New Delhi and when it was leaving the Kishanganj station, speed of train was slow, complainant converted his seat into bed and took out his mobile for setting alarm, but at once one unidentified person snatched his mobile and jumped out from the train very fastly. Complainant immediately searched for coach attendant, but neither coach attendant nor any guard or TT or care taker of the coach was available there. After 20 minutes, two guards arrived and then, complainant narrated entire incident to them and got lodged FIR in train. Ld counsel for complainant submitted that officials of OPs did not perform their duty well as they were negligent in checking the tickets of all passengers present in coach and they also did not prevent any unauthorized entry in coach, which led to snatching of his mobile phone. It is also the duty of coach to keep the doors of train closed during its running and to remain  vigilant particularly at night, but they did not perform their duty well and were negligent during working hours. Complainant made several requests to Ops to help him find out his mobile phone and to redress his grievance, but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. He has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief.

 

cc no.-123 of 2019

9                                      To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued before the Forum that all the allegations levelled by complainant are wrong and incorrect. It is asserted that complainant has suppressed the truth and have concealed the material facts from this Forum as said incident occurred due to negligence and carelessness of complainant for which OPs are not liable. It is further averred that offence has taken place near Delhi and therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. It is asserted that complainant has concocted the entire story and has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is also denied that doors of compartment were open, rather doors were latched and bolted from inside. It is also denied that some one assaulted the complainant. However, it is admitted that complainant got recorded FIR to this effect in train, but that FIR is incomplete and is not reliable. Allegations regarding loss suffered by complainant are also totally refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

10                                        We have heard the counsel for complainant  as well as OPs and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence of parties. The case of the complainant is that he was travelling alongwith his family from Igatpuri to Faridkot through train Punjab Mail bearing no.12137 and when train left Kishanganj which is near Delhi, some unidentified person snatched the mobile of complainant. complainant immediately tried to reach TT, Checker or guard but at that

cc no.-123 of 2019

time no body was available there. He raised much hue and cry and after about 20 minutes guards of Ops came there and complainant reported the entire episode to them. they got recorded report of complainant but failed to trace his mobile phone. Complainant made several requests to them to help him trace his handset or to compensate him with the loss suffered by him, but all in vain. All this happened due to negligence on the part of OPs as they were not cautious at duty time. Complainant made several requests to them to redress his grievance, but they failed to find the mobile handset of complainant and they also did not take any action to find that snatcher, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, OPs stressed mainly on the point that offence alleged by complainant has taken place near Delhi and therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. As per OPs, complainant has concocted the entire story and has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is also denied that doors of compartment were open, rather doors were completely closed and bolted from inside. It is also denied that some one snatched the mobile phone of complainant. Allegations regarding loss suffered by complainant are totally refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

11                                  To prove this case, complainant has relied upon document Ex C-2 which is copy of Booking Confirmation that proves the pleadings of complainant that he got booked seats for undertaking journey

cc no.-123 of 2019

from Faridkot to MMR and from Igatpuri to Faridkot through train number12138/Punjab Mail and 12137 Punjab Mail respectively. Document Ex C-4 is copy of First Information Report recorded in train on 27.12.2018 official of Railway Department. Ex C-5 is copy of bill that indicates that complainant purchased the lost mobile for Rs.10,999/-. Through his affidavit Ex C-1 complainant has tried to narrate his grievance and has prayed for accepting the complaint. Complainant has adduced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the case. Documents produced by complainant seem to be authentic and there appears to be no doubt regarding the allegations of complainant. OPs are deficient in providing services to complainant as they have failed in finding lost mobile of complainant and have also failed to take any action on complaint of complainant.

12                                  Ld Counsel for OPs further argued that as per version of complainant the incident took place near Delhi and thus, this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. On it, ld counsel for complainant argued that complainant was travelling from Igatpuri to Faridkot and he purchased the tickets through online system from OP-3 Railway Station situated in District Faridkot and thus, part of action arose at Faridkot. He put reliance on citation (1)1998  C.P.C.449 titled as Union of India Vs Surjit Singh Sood, wherein our Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh held

cc no.-123 of 2019

that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11-Territorial jurisdiction – Railway journey –Journey was to be performed from Delhi to Jullundur – Penalty of Rs.50/- was illegally charged from the complainant while issuing ticket at Delhi – A part of cause of action having arisen at Jullundur, District Consumer Forum, Jullundur has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in the case. To prove that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint, ld counsel for complainant has placed on record citation 2005 (3) Consumer Protection Judgments 581 titled as Divisional Railway Manager/Commercial, Southern Railway Vs Jasbir Singh decided by Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh wherein they held that pleading of lack of territorial jurisdiction was arose on the ground that train originated from Ernakulam in the State of Kerala and the destination station was New Delhi and as such, District Forum, Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. In present case, tickets for making the journey were purchased through online mode from Faridkot, which comes within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

13                                        As regards the issue of deficiency in service and negligence of Railways Administration, a list of duties prescribed by Railway Administration “TTE for Sleeper Coaches” is brought on record. Of these, duties prescribed at Sl No. 4, 14, 16 and 17 are very relevant. These read as follows:

cc no.-123 of 2019

“4. He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach, guide them to their berths/seats and prevent unauthorized persons from the coach. He shall in particular ensure that persons holding platform tickets, who came to see off or receive passengers do not enter the coach.

14. He shall ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move and open them up for passengers as and when required.

16. He shall ensure that the end doors of vestibule trains are kept locked between 22.00 and 6.00 hrs to prevent outsiders entering the coach.

17. He shall remain vigilant particularly during night time and ensure that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorised persons do not enter the coach”.

                                        The above duties clearly show that there is a responsibility cast on the TTE attached to the second class sleeper coach to be very vigilant about anyone other than the reserved tickets holders entering the compartment, to such an extent that he is required to prevent even a relation of the passenger holding a platform ticket who comes to see off a passenger from entering a coach. The TTE is particularly required to take special care in the night as brought out in Sl No. 16 and 17 Sl No.14 clearly casts a responsibility on him to ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move. Admittedly,

cc no.-123 of 2019

the TTE has failed in the performance of his duties which lead to the incident of theft. The arguments of the OPs that the rules nowhere provide that there should be a TTE for each sleeper coach can not be accepted because, then, the impressive list of duties which would remain only on the paper, since they can not be effectively enforced. Price difference between the unreserved ticket and a reserved ticket is quite high and the travelling public who buy a reserved ticket would expect that they can enjoy the train journey with a certain minimum amount of security and safety.  Hon’ble National Commission held in citation  ( I ) 2003 CPJ 72 in case titled as Union of India & ors Vs Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave & Anr that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 (b) – Railways – Luggage stolen from reserved compartment in night – Railway Administration responsible to prevent unauthorized entry – Basic safety and security precautions not taken by staff – Complainant entitled to compensation. On it, complainant put reliance on citation 2004 (3) RCR (C) page 140 titled as Sumantidevi M Dhanwatay Vs Union of India and Ors wherein our Hon’ble Apex Court held that Railway Act, 1989, Section 12A-Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 3 – Railways Act, passenger – Assault and snatching valuables of passengers by unauthorized passengers – Amounts to negligence and deficiency in service of Railways- Passengers are entitled to adequate security and safety -  Railways cannot escape its liability from compensating such loss to the passengers – Consumer Act is not in derogation of any other law –

cc no.-123 of 2019

In the absence of any objection as to jurisdictional bar, Fora can entertain and decide complaints of railway’s passengers on deficiency of service of railways. He further placed reliance on citation 2015 (4) CPJ page 20 titled as Chief General Manager, South Eastern Central Railway Vs Smt Mamta Aggarwal wherein Hon’ble Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1) (g) , 14 (1) (d) and 15 Railways – Theft of suitcase- FIR lodged – Negligence and deficiency in service of railway officials – complaint allowed – Legality of – Plea that complainant carried article without booking, thus, not entitled to compensation is not tenable – Railway administration has responsibility to provide security to passenger travelling in reserved compartment and prevent entry of unauthorised person – Failure to do so amounts to deficiency in service – Interference declined.

14                                              From the above discussion, it is observed that Railway Department failed to prevent such unauthorized person to enter the reserved compartment. In view of above, we find that there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OPs in not providing requisite safety and security to reserved compartments.  We are fully convinced with the evidence and arguments of Counsel for the complainant. The complainant succeeds in proving this case, so the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to pay

cc no.-123 of 2019

Rs.10,000/-to complainant on account of  price of lost mobile handset and are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 21.10.2019

                                      (Param Pal Kaur)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)  

 Member                             President