Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/321/2017

Indian Railway - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manoj Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil K Sahore, Adv.

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	321 of 2017
Date of Institution	21.12.2017
Date of Decision	08.01.2018

1. Indian Railway, Northern Railway, Ambala Division, Chandigarh Railway Station, Daria, Chandigarh – 160101, through its DRM (Divisional Railway Manager).
2. Indian Railway, Central Railway, Pune Division, Pune Railway Station, Pune – 411001, through its DRM (Divisional Railway Manager).
3. Indian Railway, South Western Railway, Bengaluru Division Yesantpur Railway Station, Tumkur Main Rd., Yeshwantpur, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560022, through its DRM (Divisional Railway Manager).

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Manoj Sharma S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Permanent resident of House No.3354, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh (Correspondent Address: Flat No.D-503, Grandeur Society, Bhumkar Nagar, AmbegaonBudruk, Pune – 411046.

 

                      …..Respondent/Complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for the appellants.

                          

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.10.2017 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent), and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), to comply with the order jointly and severally:-

“[a]  To pay Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant for the loss caused to his luggage;

[b] To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for    deficiency in service, for unfair trade practice and loss suffered by the Complainant; 

    [c] To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 13.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].”  

2. The facts in brief, are that, the complainant had travelled from Chandigarh to Pune along with his family on 30.01.2016 in Train No.22686 (YPR S KRANTI EXP, PNR No.2754569050) vide Annexure-1. It was stated that during the journey his two bags were destroyed by the rats, photo is enclosed herewith vide Annexure-2. It was further stated that the Complainant accordingly, registered the complaint on Complaint Book with TT at Bhopal Station under Sr. No.049709 on 30.01.2016 and demanded claim compensation of Rs.17,000/- for the loss caused (Annexure-3). It was further stated that having failed to get any positive response, the Complainant even tried to approach the Opposite Parties by all possible means, with a request to compensate him for the loss caused (Annexures C-4 to C-8 colly.), but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3.   The Opposite Party No.1 filed reply, admitted the factual matrix of the case and stated that the Complainant neither booked the alleged bags (luggage) nor paid any charges for the same, while travelling. It was further stated that as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, Railways is not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of unbooked luggage and thus, the Railways cannot be made responsible for unbooked luggage. . It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the answering Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.    The Opposite Party No.3 has also filed reply and admitted the factual aspects of the case, has taken similar pleas as were taken by the Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement. It was stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the Opposite Party No.3 had also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded exparte, by the District Forum, vide order dated 22.9.2016.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, at the preliminary stage and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11.  It is clearly evident from the records that the Opposite Parties themselves had admitted that there were chances of rat entering into the coach. The complainant has also filed grievances vide Annexures C-7 & C-8 with the Opposite Parties, stating that the train coaches are infested with rats and other bugs which have been admitted. The Opposite Parties/appellants have further admitted that periodic disinfestation and rodent control treatment were being carried out in the railway coaches through outside agency and the said agency had been suitably counselled and the appellants/opposite parties have regretted the inconvenience caused to the appellant/respondent. It is also evident that the damage caused to the respondent/complainant’s bag or luggage due to the rodents/rats, is a clear manifestation of negligence by the Opposite Parties/appellants. Simply acknowledging the fact that the damages have been caused due to the rodents/rats, is not enough to compensate the loss suffered by the respondent. Indian Railway is one of the biggest railway network in the world, carries millions of passengers to their destinations and is a very big organization with proper administrative set-up. It is not expected of such a big organization to be so careless towards the comfort and convenience of the passengers. The railway coaches are not infested only with rats, but are full of insects like cockroaches, bugs, mosquitoes, which cause huge inconvenience to the passengers, who pay quite a big sum towards their tickets. It is high time, the Indian Railway corrects its attitude towards the passengers and help them to make their journeys comfortable and memorable.
12. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case explained above, we are of the view, that the order of the District Forum needs no modification. We find that the appellants have been grossly deficient in rendering their services and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants.
14.  In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
15.  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
16. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

 

Pronounced.

08.01.2018

 

                                                                           Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                 

                                                                                            Sd/-                                        

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

                                                                                    

                                                                                       Sd/-                                            

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.321 of 2017)

(Indian Railways & Ors. Vs. Manoj Sharma)

 

Argued by:

Sh. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for the appellants.

 

Dated the 8^th day of January 2018

 

ORDER

Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 30 days (as per office report 29 days) has been filed. For the reasons explained in the application and finding sufficient cause, the delay aforesaid, is condoned.

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties, has been dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost and the order passed by the District Forum, has been upheld.

 

      

 

Sd/-                            Sd/-                                  Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER	(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT	(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

GP