Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/2453

RAILWAYS - Complainant(s)

Versus

KANHAIYA KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2453 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 27.11.2019 passed in C.C.No.443/2016 by the District Commission, Indore-1)

 

1. GENERAL MANAGER,

    WESTERN RAILWAY, INDORE (M.P.)

 

2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

    WESTERN RAILWAY, INDORE (M.P.)

 

3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

    WESTERN RAILWAY, AHMEDABAD (GUJRAT)                                            …         APPELLANTS.

 

Versus                

1. KANHAIYA S/O SHRI MOHANLAL SADHWANI,

2. SMT.LATA W/O SHRI KANHAIYA SADHWANI,

BOTH R/O 49, GULMOHAR COLONY,

INDORE (M.P.)                                                                                                        …      RESPONDENT.                                     

 

BEFORE:

                 HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                      :  PRESIDING MEMBER

                HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY               :  MEMBER    

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

      None for the appellants.

      Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.

                                                                               

                                                            O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 20.03.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:   

                   This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants is directed against the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore-1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.443/2016, whereby the District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent.

-2-

2.                In short, facts of the case as narrated by the complainants are that the complainants to attend the marriage in relation at Ahmedabad had booked reserved ticket in First AC coach of train no.9310 (Shanti Express). They started travelling on berth no.38 & 39 in coach no. A-1 in the aforesaid train on 08.02.2016. They were having luggage including green colored bag which they were kept below the berth. It is state that on the next day i.e. 09.02.2016 at about 6.45 am, when the train reached station, the complainant went to washroom and when he came back, he found that the green colored bag from their luggage was not there. Due to negligence of opposite parties, the bag was stolen. Valuable ornaments and other articles amounting to Rs.8,45,000/- kept in the bag were stolen. It is alleged that the TTE informed them that the two passengers, who were travelling in the same coach on berth no.41 & 42 de-boarded the train at Godhra Railway Station and they might have stolen the bag. From the employees of the opposite parties, the complainants came to know that the aforesaid two persons were travelling unauthorizedly and that too without tickets. The matter was reported the incident on 09.02.2016 at Ahmedabad Railway Police Station. It is alleged that due to negligence of the opposite parties their bag was stolen. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Commission,

 

-3-

seeking cost of articles Rs.8,45,000/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs Rs.25,000/-. 

3.                The appellants in their reply before the District Commission raised objection that since the incident occurred at Vadodara Railway Station, therefore, the District Commission, Indore has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further submitted that railway administration is not responsible for any loss as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 if the luggage is not booked. In case of any incident or theft, on complaint being made to TTE, Coach Attendant, Guard or GRP, they are providing FIR Form. It is further submitted that the passengers are required to look after their luggage as strong iron rings were provided below the berth for the same.  The complainants have not filed any bill regarding cost of articles stolen. The complainants have filed later valuation report and bill of Johri Radhakishan Khandelwal, which is an afterthought. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and therefore, the complaint be dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

4.                The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.8,45,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.

-4-

5.                Heard learned counsel for the complainants/respondents as none appeared for the opposite parties/appellants.  Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainants/respondents argued that due to negligence of the opposite parties, their bag containing valuable articles was stolen from the reserved coach and therefore, the District Commission has rightly held the opposite parties deficient in service and has rightly allowed the complaint after considering facts and circumstances of the matter. This appeal being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed. He placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble National Commission in Indian Railways Vs Sunil Kumar I (2019) CPJ 406 (NC), North Western Railway & Ors Vs Jasmin Mann I (2018) CPJ 580 (NC), Union of India & Ors Vs Ranjan Kumar III (2016) CPJ 264 (NC), South Central Railway & Ors Vs Jagannath Mohan Shinde II (2012) CPJ 640 (NC), Union of India, Ministry of Railways and others Vs J. S. Kunwar 2010 CTJ 275 (CP) (NCDRC), Southern Eastern Railway Vs Ku. Bharati Arora I (2004) CPJ 114 (NC), Union of India & Ors Vs Sanjiv Dilsukhraj Dave & Anr I (2003) CPJ 72 (NC) and in Union of India & Anr. Vs Manoj H. Pathak II (1996) CPJ 31 (NC) and the decisions of Chhatisgarh State Commission in Regional Manager, South East Central Railway Vs Smt. Shalini Jain & Ors. decided on 12.01.2023, decision of Delhi State Commission in General Manager, Northern Railway Vs Radha Ram

-5-

Nathan 2017(1) CLT 595, decision of Chandigarh State Commission in Northern Railway Vs Balbir Singh decided on 25.09.2014.

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the complainants/respondents and on perusal of record we find that the opposite parties in their reply have raised objection that the respondents had not booked their with the Railway Administration and therefore they are not entitled to get any compensation as per section 100 of the Indian Railways Act. It is appropriate to quote 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 states that in case of luggage which is carried by the passengers, 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.

8.                We find that the complainants/respondents in their complaint have stated that their luggage were kept under the berth despite that the luggages were stolen.  It is alleged that two unauthorized passengers were travelling on berth no.41 and 42 without any ticket. It is alleged that there were no proper safety measures to ensure security of the passengers in the said coach. We find that it was the responsibility of the TTE and the Coach

-6-

Attendant of the concerned class coach to ensure that they would remain vigilant, particularly during night time and thus ensure that no unauthorized person enters the coach which they failed to do so.

9.                The opposite parties have not filed affidavit of TTE, Coach Attendant and RPF personnel that there were no authorized passengers in the said coach.  We find that the opposite parties have failed to prove that they are not negligent and deficient in service in the present matter.  Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the opposite parties cannot take shelter of Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, to escape from their liability as it is also a fact that the opposite parties will be responsible as a carrier of luggage, if it is proved that the loss was due to negligence or misconduct on part of Railways or its servants.

10.              In view of the aforesaid, we find that the District Commission after appreciation of material available on record and on due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case has rightly allowed the complaint. We see no reasons to disagree with the well-reasoned findings of the District Commission and therefore, uphold the same.

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

                    (A. K. Tiwari)                    (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

               Presiding Member                          Member