REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 23.08.2017 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Bikaner, (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 572 of 2017.

2.     The brief facts of the case as per the petitioners/ opposite parties are that on 08.02.2011, the respondent/ complainant was going from Delhi Sarai Rohilla to Ganganagar in Coach no. A 1, seat no. 9 of AC 2 tier train run by the petitioners. The cost of the train ticket was Rs.498/-. The said train left at 10.50 p m in the night and reached Ganganagar in the morning. In the night the respondent was sleeping on the lower berth she had wrapped her hand bag in her hand and kept the same on her chest covered with the quilt. Some unknown person had tried to snatch the purse wrapped in her hand forcibly. The respondent tried to resist/ stop the unknown person from pulling the purse and she was dragged up to the door. Due to this tussle the respondent suffered injury to the middle finger of her right hand. The chain purse then broke and the said unknown person succeeded in snatching her purse. The respondent made a hue and cry. In the meanwhile, the person who had snatched the purse got down from the train as the train was running at a very slow speed. The respondent lost Rs.6,000/- in cash, two pairs of diamond Jhumka worth Rs.2,00,000/-, a ruby necklace of Rs.7,000/- and one necklace of Rs.17,000/- were also stolen. Articles of another passenger Kavita Sethi were also stolen. Report of theft was given to the coach attendant immediately but he did not take any action. The gate of the air-conditioned coach was open. The coach attendant has committed negligence in his duty due to which the said unknown person entered into the reserved coach and the incident of theft occurred. When the train reached at Sangrur platform, she got registered an FIR of the said incident at about 05.00 am in the morning of 09.02.2011. No action had been taken so far. Later on her husband told that some of her documents had been found safe, her jewellery etc., has not been found.

3.     The petitioners/ opposite parties contested the complaint and stated that the case can be tried only in a Railway Tribunal. The District Forum had no jurisdiction to hear the case. Further, the area in which the incident had taken place falls in the State of Haryana. The petitioners had admitted that the complainant was travelling in the said train and they further stated that the coach assistant had not committed any negligence and had complied with his duties. It has also been stated that no complaint was made at the spot. Hence, the petitioners prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) vide its order dated 21.06.2017 while allowing the complaint observed as under:

“6.    On the basis of the material available on the file, this is the admitted position that on 08.02.2011 the complainant was travelling on a reserved seat in Coach no. A 1 of Air conditioned train no. 12455 for coming to Sriganganagar from Delhi Sarai Rohilla. The parties have also not any dispute on this fact that during the journey, on theft of goods of complainant, the complainant has got registered an FIR with GRP Police Station Sangrur and till date the police has not recovered all the stolen of the complainant and has been returned to her. The parties has also no dispute on this fact that the goods of the complainant had been stolen by some unknown person during the night from air conditioned Coach no. A 1, during the mid-night. The non-applicant has drawn the attention of the Forum to Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989 and has argued that the goods which has been stated by the complainant stolen, the same was in her custody and possession and due to not having any negligence or careless of non-applicant Railway Department, no deficiency of service or liability of the non-applicant can be accepted. Considering the above arguments advance by the non-applicant doing with all the material available on the file, it is clear that incident of theft in this case has occurred due to the careless and negligence of the non-applicant. This fact is admitted by the non-applicant that the attendant of the coach remains in the reserved air conditioned coach and at the time of taking the journey by the complainant, attendant and conductor were present in the said coach. The legal position is that it was the duty of the attendant and the conductor in the coach, that no unwanted or unauthorised persons enter in the reserved coach but from the material available on the case file, it is clear that at the time of journey, some unknown person entered in the coach, has forcibly taken the hand pursue from the hand of the complainant. The complainant has clarified that she has made a noise but in the area of place of incident, due to running, the train in slow speed, the thief jumped and ran away. The complainant has stated that gate of the coach was also open, this fact has been denied by the non-applicant. From the material available on the file it is clear that the employee, coach conductor and attendant of the non-applicant Railway Department has not properly discharged his duty or responsibility. For this reason, incident of theft has taken place. In such circumstances, committing of deficiency in service of the non-applicants fully proved.

7.     The complainant has stated in her complaint that the time of this incident, goods (suit case) of another passenger Kavita Sethi was also stolen, during search some of the goods was found in the fields near the area of theft and passport, debit card, driving licence etc., of the complainant were found along with the goods but all the jewellery and cash contained in the hand purse were not found. Details of all the goods stolen are mentioned in the FIR made by the complainant. The complainant has also filed the bills of the jewellery articles. From the material available on the file it is clear that cash amount of Rs.6,000/- and price of the other jewellery kept in the purse of the complainant, total goods of Rs.2,30,000/- had been stolen. This has already been clarified that the incident of theft had occurred due to the deficiency in service of the non-applicant Department. In such circumstances, it is the liability of the non-applicant to pay Rs.2,30,000/- to her for the loss suffered by the complainant. It is also worth mentioning that during the journey undertaken by the complainant, due to the incident of theft, she has to suffer physical and mental agony and also has to be through the legal process and finally has to file the complaint before this Forum. In such a situation, it will also be proper to grant cost of the complaint to the complainant with compensation for mental and physical agony.

8.     On the basis of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be allowed as under:

9.     The complaint filed by the complainant against the non-applicants is allowed and is ordered that non-applicants pay the price of Rs.2,30,000/- of all the stolen jewellery and cash of the complainants along with 9% simple interest per annum from the date of filing of complaint, 20.06.2011 till the date of recovery. It is also ordered that for the mental and physical agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service committed by the non-applicants pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation along with Rs.10,000/- cost of the complaint. Compliance of the order be made within one month.”

5.     Aggrieved by the order of the District, the petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal observed as under:

        “Arguments heard and perused the case file.

The complainant was coming to Ganganagar from Delhi, on the way her purse has been snatched near Sangrur, which containing jewellery and cash. It was AC Coach. It was their duty to protect the passenger and their goods, they have not done and some person snatched the purse and succeeds in running due to slow speed of train.

The order which has been passed by the District Forum, there is no any error of any kind therein, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and dismissed.”

6.     Hence, the present revision petition.

7.     I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr Sanjeev Kumar Verma. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the State Commission had passed a non-speaking order. Further, he contended that the railways cannot be held liable for the loss of any un-booked luggage. He argued that as per Clause 146 of Coaching Tariff:

The Responsibility of the railway is as under:

The railway administration hereby gives public notice:

1. That they are not accountable for any articles, unless the same are booked and a receipt for them is given by their clerk or agent”.

Rule 500 of the Coaching Tariff no. 24 part 1 also provides that “all articles taken into the carriage are carried at the entire risk of the owners”.

According to Rule 506.2 of the Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff no. 25 (Part 1) (Vol.1) under Chapter V under the hearing “Luggage” the passenger himself is responsible for the safety of his luggage and the railways authorities cannot be held liable for any loss or damage.

8.     He has also stated that no evidence was given that such expensive jewellery was being carried by the respondent in her bag. Even if she was carrying such expensive jewellery she should have been more careful and vigilant with her belongings. He further stated that there is no evidence to show that there was any unauthorised person in the AC Coach and it is possible that it was stolen by some co-passenger, in which case, the railways cannot be held liable. No further point was urged.

9.     I have gone through the record. It is an admitted fact that the respondent/ complainant was travelling in AC 2 Tier, A 1 Coach of train no. 12455. Sometime during the midnight, when the train was between Jakahal and Sangrur Railway Station someone snatched the pursue from the complainant’s hand forcibly and dragged the respondent up to the gate, as a result of which the respondent sustained injury in the middle finger and the thief succeeded in snatching the purse. During this time, the respondent cried loudly and made noise however, as the train was running at a very slow speed the thief snatched the purse and jumped from the running train. The respondent immediately informed the attendant on duty in the train and requested him to provide help to the respondent but the attendant stated that he could not do anything as it was night time. When the train reached the railway station Sangrur an FIR was lodged at 05.40 AM with the GRP. The petitioners have admitted these facts and they have also informed that no one was present in the coach at that time, but they have stated that the respondent/complainant did not make any complaint at the spot. In fact, in their grounds they have stated that the respondent should have been more vigilant in safeguarding her valuables.

10.    I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission has given a non-speaking order. A detailed speaking order has been given by the District Forum which has been affirmed by the State Commission and they have given reasons for doing so. It is an admitted fact that the coach attendant was present and yet in spite of the noise, hue and cry raised by the respondent, the attendant did not come to her assistance nor did he help her in lodging the complaint with the RPF who should have been on board nor did he summon any help to apprehend the thief. The doors of the coach were also left open. There is no mention by the learned counsel for the petitioner or in the written statement, whether the petitioner had held any enquiry to look into the facts and circumstances of the case. They have also not been able to establish that a co-passenger had committed the theft as nowhere they have stated that after this incident any co-passenger was found missing from their seat/ berth. The FIR on record supports all the facts of the case as stated by the complainant as also the fact that the thief jumped of the running train. In fact some items were strewn at the place where he jumped but the cash and jewellery were missing.

11.    Learned counsel for the petitioner to support his case has drawn my attention to the order of the National Commission in the case of
Union of India and Ors vs Rama Shanker Misra and Anr., decided on 07.08.2015 (RP no. 4098 of 2014)

“6. We have carefully examined the complaint. There is no averment in the complaint which would constitute any negligence or misconduct or even deficiency in service on the part of the Railways or any of its employees. There is no allegation in the complaint that some unauthorized person was travelling in the compartment in which the suit case of the complainant was stolen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the railway officials were negligent in performance of their duties by allowing an unauthorized person to travel in the coach in which the complainant was travelling. Since there is no allegation that an unauthorized passenger was travelling in the aforesaid coach the possibility of some passenger travelling on a reserved ticket stealing the suit case of the complainant and getting down at a station, cannot be ruled out”.

12.    The other citations have also been placed on record to support his case that the respondent was negligent in taking care of her belongings. The facts, these cases are not relevant or applicable to this case.

13.    The National Commission in their order dated 05.06.2015 titled as General Manager, North Central Railway, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad vs Dhirendra Kumar Rai and Ors (in RP no. 2343 of 2014) in a similar case has observed as under:

“8.         Clause 146 of the Coaching Tariff provides that Railway administration is not accountable for any articles unless the same are booked and receipt for them is given by the railway clerk or agent.   Rule 500 of the Coaching Tariff No.24 Part I provides that all articles taken into carriage are carried on the entire risk of the owner and Rule 506 of Railway Coaching Tariff No.25 provides that passenger himself is responsible for safety of his luggage and the railway authorities cannot be held liable for any loss or damage.

9.         In our considered opinion, the above noted rules are of no avail in view of the statutory provisions i.e. Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 which reads as under:

“100. Responsibility as carrier of luggage

A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non – delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefore and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also provided that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants.”

10.       On reading of the above, it is clear that Railway administration is not responsible for loss of luggage carried by the petitioner in his charge unless it is proved that the loss has occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway administration or on the part of any of its servants.  In the instant case, the complainants have stated that there were unauthorised occupants in the reserved coach regarding which a complaint was made to the TTE but the TTE did not take any action to remove unauthorised persons from the coach.  Thus, it is clear that the TTE failed to perform its duty and misconducted himself by not taking any action to prevent unauthorised persons to travel in the reserved coach.  Therefore, case of the complainants squarely falls within the exception carved out in the later part of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989.  As such, the impugned order of the foras below cannot be faulted”.

14.    In the instant case also, the coach attended was negligent in leaving the door open due to which an unauthorised person entered into the reserved AC II Tier coach and committed theft. The passenger was dragged to the door and to protect her purse from the thief, she raised hue and cry but neither the attendant nor the TTE or the RPF came to her rescue. There is no justification for the door of the coach was being left opened while the train was running between two stations.

15.    In view of the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.