JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

The respondent , namely, Lakhanji Purwar went on pilgrimage to several places, in a group consisting of the members of Durga Sankirtan Mandali, Meerapur. Group booking for the members of the aforesaid organization was made by the organizers, namely, Shree Durga Sankirtan Bhajan Mandali. While travelling from Amritsar to Allahabad, the complainant and his wife travelled on Berth No.52 and 53 of Train No.8102, namely, Muri Express, on 27.7.200. The complainant locked the suitcase and two bags he was carrying, by an iron chain and kept the same under Berth No. 52. When he woke up at 2.40 a.m., one Sardar Mukhtiar Singh was found sleeping on the floor between Berth No. 49 and 52, while a lady passenger accompanying  Mukhtiar Singh was sleeping on Berth No.49. The aforesaid two passengers who allegedly did not have reservation to travel in the aforesaid train did not leave the apartment, despite having been asked by the complainant to do so. No passenger with a reserved ticket boarded the compartment in which the complainant and his wife were traveling. The alleged unauthorized persons who entered the compartment told the complainant that they had talked to the TTE of the train. When the complainant woke up at Ghaziabad, he found his suitcase and one of the bags which he was carrying stolen after cutting the iron chain. An FIR at the GRP Ghziabad was then lodged by the complainant. He served a notice upon the petitioners demanding compensation for his loss. His demand having not been acceded to, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioners who claimed that Berth No. 52 and 53 in compartment in S-8 were reserved in the name of Mrs. K. Kanta and Mr. S.P. Manchanda whereas Berth No.48 was reserved for Sardar Mukhtiar Singh. The petitioners also alleged that no passenger boarded the train along with Mukhtiar Singh. The petitioners denied any responsibility for the theft of the articles of the complainant. It was also the stand taken by the petitioners that they were responsible for the safety of only that luggage which is duly booked with them.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 21.5.2008 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant along with compensation quantified at Rs.5,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.1500/-.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, they are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

5.      The first question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioners can be said to be responsible for the theft of the luggage which the complainant was carrying with him and which was not duly booked with the petitioners. This issue came up for consideration of this Commission in Dinesh Agrawal Vs. Indian Railway (Revision Petition No.3265 of 2014) decided on 3.9.2015 and the following view was taken:-

“5. Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 on which reliance is placed by the petitioner reads as under:

“Responsibility as carrier of luggage – A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration of 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 proved 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.”

It would thus be seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways on any of its employees.”

          It would thus been seen that the petitioners can be held liable for the theft of the articles of the complainant only if some negligence or misconduct on the part of a railway official is made out and it is shown that but for the said negligence or misconduct, the loss would not have taken place. As noted earlier besides, passengers Mr. Mukhtiar Singh, his wife was also found sleeping in coach in which the complainant was travelling. Though the case of the petitioners is that Sardar Mukhtiar Singh was travelling alone, since no affidavit of the TTE, deputed in Coach No.ST-7 in which the complainant was traveling was filed before the District Forum, the deposition of the complainant as regards an unauthorized person traveling in the train along with Mr. Mukhtiar Singh remained unrebutted and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the said deposition. The FIR lodged by the complainant soon after noticing the theft of his articles also corroborates the case set out by him in this regard. Therefore, the finding returned by the Fora below in this regard cannot be said to be  perverse, so as to justify interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisonal jurisdiction.

6.      It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Berth No.52 and 53 were not reserved in the name of the complainant and his wife but were reserved in the name of K. Kanta and S.P. Manchanda. A perusal of the record would show that Shree Durga Sankirtan Mandli had made bulk booking for as many as 49 persons and one of them was complainant, namely, Lakhanji Puriwar though Berth No.34 was occupied by him. Berth No.35 was occupied by his wife Mrs. Kusum Lata. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant and his wife were unauthorized passengers. The interchange of berth which is quite common when a large number of persons are traveling in a group would make no difference so long as every member of the group occupies a valid ticket against a valid reservation for traveling in the same compartment. Had there been no booking in the aforesaid compartment in the name of the complainant and his wife only then it could  be said that their travel in the said compartment was unauthorized, but a mutual interchange of the seats will not  render them to be unauthorized passengers.

7.      The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners can be said to be responsible for the entry of an authorized passengers in the compartment in which the complainant was travelling. A perusal of the report purporting to be submitted by the concerned TTE to his superiors would show that he was not present in Coach No.ST-8 throughout the journey since he was given charge of two coaches which were not connected with each other. Therefore, it could not have been possible for him to remain present in both the coaches throughout the journey. Had the TTE been present in Coach No.ST-8 throughout the journey, it would not been possible for an unauthorized passenger to board the train unless the TTE himself was in connivance with such a person. The petitioners, in my view, were deficient in rendering services to the passengers travelling in Coach No. ST-8 on that day, by not deputing a TTE to remain present in the coach throughout the journey. The unauthorized passenger presumably could enter Coach No.ST-8 taking advantage of the fact that the TTE was not present in the coach throughout the journey. In fact the affidavits filed by the petitioners before the District Forum including the affidavits of Mr. S.P. Manchanda and Mr. Lallu Lal Gupta would show that the TTE did not return to Coach No.ST-8 at any point of time after he had once checked the tickets at the commencement  of the journey. Therefore, the theft of the articles of the complainant happened solely on account of the deficiency on the part of the Indian Railways in rendering services to him by not deputing a TTE to remain present in the coach throughout the journey.

8.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no good reason to interfere with the concurrent view taken by the Fora below. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.