Nagaland

StateCommission

FA 2/2007

Union of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Major P. Vinay Kakkar - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. B. N. Sarmah

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 12/03/2007, passed by learned District Consumer Forum, Dimapur in C.F.D Case No 2/2003.By this impugned judgment the Forum has awarded compensation of Rs.61,460/- to the complainant-respondent for the loss of personal belongings while coming from Delhi to Dimapur by train. This amount includes general damages of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service .Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment the Railways have preferred this appeal.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the appellant was found absent without any steps. On the earlier occasions also the appellant’s counsel was irregular in appearing before the Commission and once the appeal was dismissed for default on 8/3/2016. Subsequently, the appeal was restored on 03/05/2016. Since it is 10 years old appeal we are disposing the same on merit upon hearing Shri. Pfosekho the learned counsel for the sole respondent. While doing so, we have perused the memo of appeal and the records.

The gist of the case is that the respondent is an Army officer in the rank of Major. On the relevant night he was traveling from Delhi to Dimapur.At about mid-night one unknown miscreant took away one suit case being carried by the complainant. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged with the TTE of the coach as well as an F.I.R was also lodged at GRP Police station at New Jalpaiguri on 18/10/2002. Since the railway authority failed to compensate his loss a formal complaint under Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed at Dimapur.

Upon hearing both the parties the District Forum decided the case in favor of the complainant.

As could be gathered from the memo of appeal the main grievance of the appellant is that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction since the alleged theft took place near New Jalpaiguri the State of West Bengal.The other ground to assail the impugned judgment is that in view of Sections 13,15 and 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 a passenger has to approach a civil court to get himself compensated for the loss of any valuable in transit.

During the course of argument the learned counsel for the respondent submitted certain authorities from the National Commission and State Commission to buttress his argument that the District Consumer Forum had the jurisdiction and authority to decide the case.

In the case of G.M South Central Railway –vrs- Dr. R.V. Kumar &Anr;reported in 2005 (2) CPR 37 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that Sections 13 and 15 of the Railways Act are applicable only for the goods and luggage that are entrusted to the Railways and not for the personal belongings of the passengers. Similar view has been taken by the Kerala State Commission in the case of The General Manager, Central Railways, Mumbai &Ors –vrs- Mabel Joseph;  reported in 2003 (1) CPR 635. In this case the Commission has held that the Railways cannot claim immunity from Section 100 if the luggage of the traveling passenger is taken away by an unauthorized passenger from inside the compartment. Identical view has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh State Commission in the case of Ku. Bharti Arora&Ors –vrs- General Manager Central Railway &Anr;reported in 2003 (2) CPR 349. In this case the State Commission has also held that if the luggage of train passenger is taken away from the coach by an unauthorized person it amounts to deficiency in service.

In the case before hand the complainant was robbed of his valuables by un identified person. The complainant has made a categorical statement in the complaint petition that he had noticed an unauthorized person sitting by his side and it was reported to the TTE.

In the back ground of the facts, narrate herein above, we hold that technical objection regarding maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum has no legs to stand.

Coming to the amount of the compensation we notice that the respondent has given a list of valuables lost by him in the FIR at New Jalpaiguri.A copy of which is also annexed in the consumer case. The list of articles include valuable items like camera, good numbers of suits, jackets, one costly sunglass etc. The Complainant has assessed the value of the loss of articles atRs. 41, 460/- . After going through the list of articles we find that the amount has not been exaggerated. Hence, we hereby approvethe award of Rs. 41,460/- for the loss of articles.

As noted earlier, the District Forum has also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for deficiency in service. In our opinion just because an unidentified person had stolen away one suit case of a passenger it cannot be said to be gross deficiency of service. Sometime even a bonifide passenger, having valid ticket, may also steal valuables of a co-passenger.However, the complainant has certainly suffered inconvenience for the loss of his personal belongings. He was also required to purchasea duplicate ticket and also some clothes at New Jalpaiguri town. Considering all aspects we reduce the general damages to Rs. 5,000/-. In other words, the total compensation comes to Rs. 46,460/- Forty six thousand four hundred sixty. This amount will carry interest  at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment as awarded by the District Forum.

With the aforesaid modification in the amount of compensation the appeal stands dismissed.