1. The complainant is the wife of one Rakesh Gupta ,Corporate Executive of HINDALCO Industries Ltd., Hirakud boarded train No.18508 (Hirakud Express) on 8^th July,2013 at New Delhi Railway Station in A.C. 2 tire coach No.A1 in berth No. 38 and 39 and ticket No was 2348169024 (PNR No.2448707514) she travelled with her daughter . In course of Journey between Bina and Bilashpur Railway Station her V.I.P suit case of Navy Blue color was taken away by robbers cutting the iron chain with the connivance of T.T.E and conductor of the compartment. The complaint informed the conductor in Bilaspur Station but he did not help. As her daughter was with, she could not go to lodge F.I.R in G.R.P Police Station, Bilaspur and when train reached Sambalpur lodged the F.I.R on 9^th July, 2013.

The T.T.E was Mr. K.C. Panda Coach attendant Mr.Sharat Kumar were on duty during the period. After lodging F.I.R the prescribed proforma was sent to Bilaspur G.R.P. P.S.

The luggage was having valuable ornaments, cash of Rs.10, 000/- and clothes total amounting to Rs.12,00000/- (Rupees twelve Lakhs) as alleged by the complainant.

The husband of the complainant made complaints before Commandant, R.P.F (M.P) on 15^th July, 2013, then on 17^th July, 2013 to Secretary to Govt. M.P. through e-mail but no any action taken except oral assurance.

When the train was in motion it was not possible to commit robbery between Bina and Bilaspur and to get down. The T.T.E and coach attendant are personally liable for the robbery committed.

There was attachment of the complainant with robbed articles as it was received in her marriage gift. The complainant alleged deficiency in service of the Opp. Parties.

2. The O.P.No.1 appeared, filed his show cause, whereas the other Opp. Parties are set-exparte. The contesting Opp. Party challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission. The G.M. Northern Railway is not a proper party. The other O.Ps are not proper parties in this case. The dispute is not a consumer dispute. The railway cannot be held responsible for the loss of unbooked luggage. The complainant is negligent as she only came to know about the incidence in Bilaspur Station only. Railway is a transport organization and catering the needs of the transportation of passengers and goods, the responsibility for safety / security i,e, law and order issue lies with the Police of the state. The complaint has no any merit.
3. After perusal of complaint, show cause of the Opp. Parties and documents filed by the parties the following issues are framed:
4.  
103606587.  

1. Whether this dispute can be categorized as “Consumer dispute” and the Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. Whether the Railway Authority can be held responsible for the unbooked luggage in case of theft/robbery/dacoity and loss of articles?
3. Whether the Railway is deficient in providing service?
4. What relief the complainant is entitled to get?

ISSUE NO.1:- Whether this dispute can be categorized as “Consumer dispute” and the Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

                        It is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant and her daughter started boarding from New Delhi having PNR No.2348169024 and 244877514 and the destination was Sambalpur . The complainant paid Rs.1932.47 for herself and same amount for her daughter for the journey. The journey started on 8^th July,2013 and concluded i.e. arrived at Sambalpur on 9^th July,2013.

                        As the complainant paid the ticket rate including other charges the consumer relationship exists between the parties and the complainant is a consumer of the Opp. Parties.

                        The journey from New Delhi to Sambalpur and the incidence of theft occurred on the track. The complainant has categorically mentioned that young daughter was with her and unable to lodge a F.I.R in Bilaspur Station. The staff of the coach did not co-operate the complainant for which she reached Sambalpur, lodged the F.I.R. As F.I,R was lodged at Sambalpur and also the complainant resides, the territorial office of the Opp. parties situate at Sambalpur where the part cause of action arose, this commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.The O.P.No.1 cited M/S Sonic Surgical –Vrs- National Insurance Co. Ltd  case . The said case law is not applicable in this case.

ISSUE NO.2 :- Whether the Railway can be held responsible for the un-booked luggage in case of theft/ robbery /dacoity and loss of articles?

                                    The contesting Opp. Party submitted that the Railway administration has no any responsibility for the loss, destruction, damage, deteriorate on or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefor as per Section 100 of the Railway Act. 1989. As the stolen articles of the complainant is not booked or insured, the Opp. Parties are not responsible for the theft.

                                    The Opp. Party cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Vijay Kumar Jain –Vrs.- Union of India and another in special leave Appeal (Civil) No.(s) 34731, 34739/2012.

                                     “…………………….. The Railways cannot be held responsible for the alleged loss of attachée by way of theft or otherwise, we do not find any valid ground to the orders passed by District Forum, State Commission and the National Commission”.

                                     As the suit case of the complainant was in berth No.38 and 39 A.C Two tier sleeper coach A-1 the matter was informed to the T.T.E and conductor of the compartment. It was their duty to help the passenger in lodging F.I.R at Bilaspur G.R.P. The Opp. Party remained silent in their version what steps have been taken in Bilashpur Station. No doubt as the luggage is not booked the responsibility goes to the complainant but the Opp. Parties failed to provide a safe journey to the complainant as it reveals from F.I.R and other steps taken in expediting the matter in investigation.

            Accordingly the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.3 :            The staff of the Opp. Parties i,e, O.P. No.3 and 4 have not provided proper service to the complainant lodging the F.I.R in Bilaspur station and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties.

ISSUE NO.4 :            As the Opp. Parties are deficient in their service to the complainant accordingly the complainant is entitled for relief.

                                                            ORDER

                         The complaint is partly allowed against the Opp. Parties . The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service. The Opp. Prties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expense. The total amount will carry 4% P.A interest from the day of filing of this complaint. In case the Opp. Parties failed to pay the amount within 30 days then the amount will carry 12% interest till payment.

            Order pronounced in open court on this 26^th day of April,2022.

            Supply free copies to the parties.