RESERVED

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                              UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                 APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2017

        (Against the judgment/order dated 30-11-2016 in Complaint Case

                             No.10/2016 of the District Consumer Forum-I, Moradabad)

Union of India

Through Divisional Rail Manager

Divisional Rail Manager Office

District Moradabad

                                                                                    ...Appellant

                                                     Vs.

Km. Joytsana Saini

D/o Suresh Kumar Saini

R/o C/o Ram Mohan Sharma

Sri S K Mandal Lane 2 Canal Road

Dehradun (Uttrakhand)

                                                                                      ...Respondent

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

For the Appellant                :  Sri Vaibhav Raj, Advocate.

For the Respondent             :  Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, Advocate.

Dated :  28-11-2018

                                            JUDGMENT

PER MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed before State Commission under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the judgment and order dated 30-11-2016 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Moradabad in Complaint Case No. 10/2016, Kriti Jyotsana Saini V/s Union of India, Through Divisional Manager Railway, Divisional Office Moradabad whereby the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint and passed following order in Hindi which is extracted below.

‘’ परिवादनी का परिवाद विरूद्ध विपक्षी स्‍वीकृत किया जाता है। विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि विपक्षी इस आदेश से एक माह के अंदर परिवादनी को सामान की क्षतिपूर्ति हेतु अंकन-15,000/- रूपये अदा करे।

:2:

विपक्षी मानसिक क्षतिपूर्ति हेतु अंकन-5,000/- रूपये एवं अंकन-2000/- रूपये वाद व्‍यय भी परिवादनी को अदा करे। ‘’

Feeling aggrieved by the above order passed by District Consumer Forum, opposite party of complaint has filed this appeal.

Learned Counsel Sri Vaibhav Raj appeared for appellant.

Learned Counsel Sri Satya Prakash Pandey appeared for respondent.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.

In brief relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the respondent/complainant has filed above complaint against appellant/opposite party before District Consumer Forum wherein it has been stated by her that she was travelling by Train No. 14226 Dehradun Varanasi Janta Express on 02-07-2014. She boarded on the said train at Dehradun Railway Station and was coming to Lucknow. Her berth number was 33 Coach No. S-3. When the train reached Kath railway station at 11.50 p.m. two boys came and snatched her purse. At that time there was no sufficient light on the railway station Kath. Respondent/complainant raised cry but could not receive any help nor the government railway police came on spot. Thereafter when the train reached Moradabad railway station at 12.15 a.m. the respondent/complainant lodged report of incident in GRP police at Moradabad.

In complaint it has been stated by respondent/complainant that the value of articles snatched by the above boys was about Rs.5,00,000/-.

In complaint it has been stated by the respondent/complainant that she made request to railway authorities to reimburse the loss but they refused to do so. Consequently she has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum.

The appellant/opposite party has filed written statement before District Consumer Forum wherein it has been stated that Crime No.292/2014 under Section 379 IPC has been registered in GRP police station Moradabad on the report of respondent/complainant. After

:3:

inspection the police has submitted final report before court concerned.

In written statement it has been stated by the appellant/opposite party that the respondent/complainant has not taken sufficient precaution at the time of her journey. She should have kept the shutter and glasses of window of the train closed. The incident has taken place due to her own negligence. The incident of theft alleged by the respondent/complainant is not the result of any deficiency of Indian Railways.

In written statement it has been stated by the respondent/complainant that the loss alleged by respondent/complainant is inconsistent with the loss alleged in FIR lodged in GRP police station Moradabad.

In written statement it has been stated by the appellant/opposite party that the complaint is not maintainable before District Consumer Forum and is liable to be dismissed.

After having gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint and passed order as extracted above.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum is against fact as well as law. The alleged incident of theft has taken place due to own negligence and carelessness of respondent/complainant. The Indian Railways are not responsible for the alleged incident.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed appeal and contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is correct. No interference is justified.

I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.

Incident of snatching alleged by respondent/complainant has not been denied by appellant. It is for the railways to check and prevent entry of unauthorised persons and to provide security to passengers while boarding on train. Appellant has failed to show that sufficient security arrangement was made on station to prevent entry of unauthorised

:4:

persons. After having gone through facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the snatching at railway station itself is sufficient to show deficiency in service of appellant Indian Railways. I find no illegality in impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum. Amount of compensation awarded by District Consumer Forum cannot be said unjust.

In view of conclusion drawn above appeal is dismissed. Appellant shall pay Rs.3,000/- to respondent/complainant as cost of appeal.

Rs.11,000/- deposited by appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in this appeal shall be remitted to District Consumer Forum with interest accrued for disposal.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.

                                                                ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

          Pnt.