Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/2142

RAILWAYS - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAIPRAKASH - Opp.Party(s)

SH.H.S.RAJPUT

16 Feb 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2142 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 26.09.2017 passed in C.C.No.435/2015 by District Commission, Indore-1)

 

1. CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD INDIA,

    RAILWAY BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, INDIA

 

2. GENERAL MANAGER,

    CENTRAL RAILWAY HEAD OFFICE,

    CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI TERMINUS (CST)

    MUMBAI

 

3. GENERAL MANAGER,

    WESTERN RAILWAY, FIRST FLOOR,

    G.L.O.BUILDING, WESTERN RAILWAY HEAD OFFICE,

    CHURCH GATE, MUMBAI.

 

4. STATION MANAGER,

    INDORE RAILWAY STATION, INDORE                                                               … APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

 

JAIPRAKASH S/O ARJUN PRASAD KAPOOR,

R/O FLAT NO.101, FIRST FLOOR,

PLOT NO.R-90, MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR,

INDORE (M.P.)                                                                                                           … RESPONDENT.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA                          :  MEMBER

           HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                      

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri H. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellants.

           None for the respondent.

                

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 16.02.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellants’) is directed against the order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore-

-2-

1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.435/2015, whereby the District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’).

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the respondent is a senior citizen who was travelling along with his wife on berth no.61 & 64 in coach no. S-3 of train no.19311-Pune-Indore Express on 07.06.2013. He was having two suitcases containing different articles.  It is stated that both the suitcases were kept chained and locked beneath the berth. It is further stated that at about 10pm they went off to sleep and when the train reached Nagda, he realized that both the suitcases were not there.  Several goods along with two VIP suitcases were stolen after breaking the chain. The TTE and RPF personnel could not be found in the coach. He was informed that the RPF personnel were on duty regarding Ujjain visit of Hon’ble President of India and therefore they were not on duty in the said train. The respondent gave details of the incident to TTE Incharge and lodged FIR with the GRP Police Station, Indore. It is alleged that due to negligence of the appellants, his suitcases were stolen. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the appellants, the respondent approached the District Commission, seeking relief. 

3.                The appellants in their reply before the District Commission raised objection that railway administration is not responsible for loss as per

-3-

Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 if the luggage is not booked. It is further submitted that the passengers are required to look after their luggage and should take care of their belongings.  There has been no deficiency in service on part of the appellants and therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay Rs.35,000/- within a period of two months failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. Cost of Rs.1,500/- is also awarded.

5.                Heard.  Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the respondent has not been able to prove deficiency in service against the appellants. The complaint is not maintainable, as per Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act. He argued that the appellants had taken objection in this regard, even then the District Commission has allowed the complaint.  He further argued that value of goods carried by him was Rs.20,000/- only, but the District Commission has awarded Rs.35,000/- to him, which proves that the impugned order is erroneous. He while arguing the matter placed reliance on the judgment of the National Commission in South Eastern Railway & Ors Vs Swapna Mukherjee & Anr I (2019) CPJ 541 (NC), Revision Petition No. 3992 of 2017 (Zonal Manager/General Manager Sout East

-4-

Central Railway & Ors. Vs Puroshattam Mohta) decided on 24 January 2019 and in Union of India & Ors Vs Ramniwas II (2020) CPJ 4 (NC).

7.                Respondent has filed written arguments stating that the District Commission has passed a well-reasoned order after considering facts and circumstances of the matter. This appeal being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed.

8.                The appellants in their reply have raised a specific plea that the respondent had not booked his belongings with the Railway Administration and therefore he is not entitled for compensation as per section 100 of the Indian Railways Act. The appellants have taken defence of Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, which reads thus:                                        

“Responsibilities as carrier of luggage- A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt thereof, 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 negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any its servant.”

 

                        Aforesaid section clearly stipulates that in case of luggage which is carried by the passenger, the railway administration shall not be responsible for its loss, unless it is proved that the said loss was due to negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servant.

9.                We find that the respondent in the complaint has specifically alleged that his luggages were kept under the berth and were chained and

-5-

locked by him, despite that the luggages were stolen.  It is categorically stated that no TTE and RPF personnel was found when he had searched for them in the said coach and upon enquiry, he was informed that no RPF personnel were on duty in the said train, who were engaged at some other place. It is alleged that there were no proper safety measures to ensure security of the passengers in the said coach.

10.              The respondent further submitted that when the TTE came, he reported the matter to TTE. The appellants have not even placed an affidavit of TTE, which could have been substantial in deciding the matter. We find that the appellants have failed to prove that they are not negligent and deficient in service in the instant matter.  Also, looking at the facts of the case, we observe that the appellants cannot take shelter of Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, as aforesaid and escape from their liability.

11.              The judgment referred by the appellants in Purshottam Mohta case, (supra), it has been held in that judgment that suitcase carried by the complainant was unchained, which led to theft.  In the judgment of  Ramniwas, (supra), it is held in that though the complainant had alleged deficiency in service on part of the railways but it was not specifically alleged that there was no TTE or guard in the compartment. In the judgment of  Swapna Mukherjee, (supra) the complainant failed to establish any negligence on part of railway employees.

-6-

12.              For the reasons stated above, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable owing to different facts and circumstances of the case in hand and thus the appellants are not benefitted from them.

13.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the District Commission on due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case has rightly awarded summated amount of Rs.35,000/- on account of valuation of goods which were lost along with compensation towards mental agony suffered by the respondent.

14.              In our considered view, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and it is accordingly upheld.

15.              The appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)  (D. K. SHRIVASTAVA)  (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                      MEMBER