MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS V/S RAM VEER S/O RAM LAL - Consumer Court Case

Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/153/2022

RAM VEER S/O RAM LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	153 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	24.11.2022
Date of Decision	:	06.04.2023

1] Ram Veer S/o. Sh. Ram Lal, House No.1191-A, Sector – 28B, Chandigarh.

2] Mamta Verma W/o Sh. Ram Veer, House No.1191-A, Sector-28B, Chandigarh.

….Appellants/Complainants.

Versus

1] Ministry of Railways, Room No.256-A, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.

2] Indian Railway through General Manager, Northern Railway Rail Bhawan, Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.

3] Divisional Railway Manager, Indian Railways, Ambala Cantt. Rail Vihar, Near Ambala Bus stand, Ambala Cantt, Haryana 134003.

4] GRP, Ambala Cantt. Ambala Cantt, Haryana-133001.

5] Railway Superintendent, Indian Railways, Chandigarh, Industrial Area Phase-1, Darua, Chandigarh - 160001.

6] GRP, Chandigarh, Model Police Station GRP, Daria, Chandigarh - 160001.

7] DRM, Indian Railways New Delhi, Railway Colony, Paharganj, New Delhi - 110002.

8] GRP New Delhi, GRP New Delhi Railway Police Station, Paharganj, New Delhi - 110055.

9] Bharti AXA General Insurance Co., SCO 350-351-352, Sector-34A, Chandigarh-160034.

...Respondents/Opposite parties.

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Ram Veer, appellant in person.

Sh. Vineet Mittal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3, 5 & 7.

Sh. Narender Parmar, AAG (Haryana) on behalf of respondents No.4 & 6 along-with Sh. Satyavir Singh, GRP, Ambala Cantt.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.9 – ICICI Lombard.

None for respondent No.8.

(Respondents No.1, 2, 5 & 8 exparte vide order dated 04.01.2023).

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

This appeal has been filed by the complainants, namely, Sh. Ram Veer and his wife, namely, Mamta Verma (appellants herein), against order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), vide which their consumer complaint bearing No.220 of 2019 has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case, as culled from the impugned order passed by Ld. District Commission, are as under:-

“1. Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainants are that they booked the online E-ticket (ticket PNR No.-2515657893) through the website of the Indian Railways Website www.irete.co.in by paying Rs.430.98 for their Journey 05 Nov 2018 from CHANDIGARH (CDG) To NEW DELHI (NDLS) and date and time of Boarding is 05.11.2018 02:05 Hrs. He was travelling with his family to attend urgent work at Dwarka Delhi from Chandigarh (Boarding station) to New Delhi (Destination Station) with Insured E-ticket having PNR No.-2515657893 in TRAIN No.-12450 GOA SAMPARK KRANTI EXPRESS on birth No.-7172 in Coach No.S-7, on 05/11/2018. (Annexure A-1). When the train departed from the Chandigarh Railway Jn. some unauthorized persons were moving here & there in the reserved coach and then he informed the T.T.E. regarding such unauthorized persons in between Chandigarh - Ambala Cantt. Jn. during the ticket checking. When the train stopped at Ambala Cantt. Jn. and again some unauthorised persons entered in the reserved coach and the T.T.E. had completely failed in his duty and did not stop the said persons from entering in the reserved coach and the doors were also not closed. It has further been averred that when the train departed from Ambala Cantt. Junction then an un-authorized person snatched his wife's purse in running train and he was jumped from the running Train. The following items were available in aforesaid ladies purse:-

GOLD JWELLERY MANGAL SUTRA, EAR RINGS,CHAIN, FINGER RING (GOLD WEIGHT. 25 GMS APPROXIMATLY)
HTC DESIRE MOBILE (SIM 9478693174 WORKING) IMEI No.355492070191804.
ATMs - SBI AND BANK OF BARODA.
CASH Rs.-9500/
AADHAR CARD
PAN CARD
VOTER CARD
CAR KEY
REGISTRATION FORMS (UPTET) /E-ticket etc.

He contacted the T.T.E on duty but he did not help him and when he asked regarding security staffs i.e. GRP and RPF then he replied that no security staff is posted in the train. He was shocked and hopeless that time, then another passenger who was travelling in the same coach, gave him the contact number of GRP Ambala 0171-2600199. He contacted the GRP Ambala to initiate the action against the snatcher and to recover the valuable goods and documents. He repeated again and again to the Duty Officer to put his stolen mobile phone No.9478693174 on the surveillance which would be helpful to catch the snatcher early because the mobile phone was switched on around 09:30AM, but the officer sitting on duty neither registered his complaint/FIR nor put his mobile on surveillance and they even misguided him and told that he had to register the complaint/FIR at his destination i.e., New Delhi. On reaching New Delhi, FIR No.0677 dated 05/11/2018 was registered by the GRP New Delhi. He wrote e-mails to the higher authorities but no action has been taken against the snatcher. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2. In their written statement, OPs No.1 to 3, 5 to 7 took preliminary inter alia that the complainants are not consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. They have further stated that complaint filed by the complainant is false as no such incident has been reported by the TTE on the train nor any complaint was lodged at GRP Police Station at Ambala Cantt where the alleged theft took place. Even the complainant has not lodged any complaint in the complaint book available with the TTE and as per the statement of TTE, only 17 passengers travelled in coach S-7 on 05.11.2018 and there was no unauthorized passenger or person in the coach till Delhi and a copy of the statement of the TTE along with the passenger chart was annexed as Annexure R-1 (Colly.). It has further been pleaded that the complainant lodged the complaint on 05.11.2018 with the GRP, New Delhi and an FIR No.’Zero FIR’ 677 dated 05.11.2018 under Sections 356/379 IPC was registered at New Delhi against unknown persons and after investigation no clue was found in the alleged incident. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3. In its separate written statement, OP No.4 has stated that on the statement of the complainant, FIR ‘No.Zero FIR’ 0677 dated 05.11.2018 under Sections 356/379, PS, New Delhi Railway Station was registered against unknown persons. On receiving the complaint in PS GRP, Ambala Cantt., FIR No.362 dated 16.12.2018 under Sections 379-A IPC was registered and all possible efforts were made to trace the accused persons and to recover the stolen articles but no clue was found nor any stolen articles were traced and finally untraced report was prepared in the case and was to be submitted in the concerned Cot shortly after observing all codal formalities. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4. In its separate written statement, OP No.9 has stated that the complainant did not disclose the policy particulars/claim number and in the absence of the same, it is unable to comment whether the claim was lodged or not? or whether the complainant is covered under the policy or not’ or whether the claim is payable as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.”

3. The order of the Ld. District Commission has been assailed on the ground that the Ld. District Commission has failed to appreciate the duties prescribed by Railway Administration to T.T.E for sleeper Coaches, as per which, the TTE has to check the tickets of the passengers in the coach, guide them to their berth/seats and prevent unauthorised persons from the coach; ensure that persons holding platform tickets, who came to see off or receive passengers do not enter the coach; further ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move and open them up for passengers as and when required, also ensure that the end doors of vestibuled trains are kept locked between 22.00 and 6.00 hrs to prevent outsiders entering in the coach; remain vigilant particularly during night time and ensure that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorised persons do not enter the coach. It has further been stated that the Ld. District Commission has failed to consider the terms & conditions of Bharti Axa General Insurance Company. It has further been stated that when the incident took place, all the doors of the compartment were open during night hours. It has further been stated that when the appellants approached to the TTE on duty namely Sh. Amrit Preet Singh for registering the complaint as well as to reporting the GRP/Security personnel, he neither registered the complaint nor helped the appellants and replied that no security staff is posted in the Train. It has further been stated that Ld. District Commission did not consider deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Department that the appellants did not reach at their destination safe & secure. It has further been stated that there was no security staffs (GRP/RPF) posted in the long route train during Diwali festival season on its peak, which proves carelessness of the Railway department as incident of theft took place and this fact was not taken into consideration by the Ld. District Commission. The appellants cited Seema Arora Vs. Ministry of Railways & anr., Consumer Complaint No.788 of 2019 decided on 02.02.2022, wherein under similar circumstances, the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh allowed the said complaint and directed the opposite parties to reimburse the loss suffered, which was quantified at Rs.35,000/- besides awarding Rs.15,000/- for compensation and litigation expenses. Further in support of their case, reliance has been placed on Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave and Anr., Revision Petition decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 23.10.2002; Union Bank of India Vs. Dr. Shobha Agarwal, Revision Petition No.602 of 2013 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 22.07.2013 and Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway Vs. Raju Devi Suryavanshi & anr., Revision Petition No.630 of 201 decided on 03.09.2019. Lastly, the appellants have prayed for allowing the complaint by setting aside the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, 5 & 7, it has been stated that the appellants are not covered under the definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, railways is not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of un-booked luggage. It has further been stated that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground alone that the present matter relates to the offence of theft and the appellants need to strictly prove that they were carrying alleged articles with them and the theft had occurred due to the negligence of railways. It has further been stated that the dispute in the present matter needs to be proved with the help of detailed evidence and thus, such a matter was to be proved with deep probe and investigation as well as recording of evidence. It has further been stated that the adoption of course could only be taken into by the other competent Tribunal constituted under the Railways Act, which has competence to do so. It has further been stated that in the present case, no sufficient evidence was brought up by the appellants to prove the averments of the complaint and the same has rightly been dismissed by the Ld. District Commission.

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the material available on record and the written arguments carefully.

6. The questions require to be answered in the present case are, firstly, whether the opposite parties can deny their liability to compensate the complainants by relying upon Section 100 of the Railways Act 1989; and secondly, whether there is negligence on the part of the Railway Administration in providing measures whereby removal of handbag by an intruder became possible? Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, 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.”

7. So far as the first question as to whether the opposite parties can deny their liability to compensate the complainants by relying upon Section 100 of the Railways Act 1989 is concerned, it may be stated here that this issue is no more res integra as the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave and Anr., a revision petition decided on 23.10.2022, in Paras 7 to 9, held as under:-

“7. As regards the first issue, the Respondents relied on the judgment of this Commission in the case of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railways and Anr. v. Dr. K.K. Sharma and Ors., [200 (III) CPJ page 1 (NC)]. The gist of the judgment is that "existence of remedy provided by Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 did not take away the jurisdiction of the consumer courts to decide the question of deficiency of service. The consumer courts cannot sub-plant the jurisdiction of the Railway Tribunals or any other judicial or quasi judicial body but can supplement the jurisdiction of these bodies in appropriate cases. It provides an additional remedy to a consumer".

8. Under the Railways Act, 1989, "goods" and "luggage" are two different things defined separately under Clauses (19) and (23) respectively of Section 2 of the said Act. A plain reading of these clauses show that the word "luggage" means baggage carrying personal belongings of passengers. Further "luggage" can be either carried by passenger himself or entrust to the railway administration for carriage "Goods" means containers, pallets or some articles of transport used to consolidate goods and animals. It appears that "goods" connotes material in the nature of merchandise and does not include personal effects or provisions under Section 13(1)(a) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to try disputes relating to the responsibility of railway administration as carrier in respect of claims of compensation for loss, destruction, damage or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to the railway administration carried by railways. The words used by the Legislature in Section 13(1)(a)(i) are "goods" and has expressly and specifically included "luggage". Thus, under the above section, the Railway Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to try and entertain the claim for loss etc. only of "goods entrusted" to railway administration for carriage by the railways. In the present case, luggage was carried by the Respondents themselves and was not entrusted to the railway administration for carriage by the railways. Hence, in the absence of entrustment" of luggage, the Railway Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute involved in the present case.

9. Section 15 of the above Act bars the jurisdiction of the other courts, as regards claims falling under Section 13 of the Act. The language of Section 13 dealing with the jurisdiction of the claims tribunal is explained and unambiguous and since the present case of loss of luggage is not covered by Section 13, the question of any baring of jurisdiction of general courts under Section 15 of the RCT Act does not arise.”

8. A passenger travelling by a train is entitled to carry certain baggage or luggage within permissible limits of weight, free of cost. There is no question of entrusting such baggage/luggage to the Railways and getting a receipt thereof. If a loss takes place of such a luggage, Railways can be held responsible provided that there is negligence on the part of Railways or any of its servants, provided, of course, that the passenger himself has taken reasonable care of his personal baggage as expected of a prudent person. In view Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay v. Union of India Ors., II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC) : 2004 (3) Supreme 291, the Apex Court observed that;

"Railway Administration cannot escape its liability for negligence and deficiency in service in failing to prevent unauthorized persons assaulting passengers in railway compartment and taking away their luggage."

9. Thus, we are also of the considered view that once the passenger takes the ticket and travel by the train, it is the responsibility of the railway to see that passenger reaches the destination safely with his luggage and belongings. It is the duty of the railway staff to see that the belongings of the passengers are safe.

10. In the instant case, the hand purse was never booked as cargo in the luggage van and in fact was being carried by the appellants, specially, appellant No.2 (wife of appellant No.1)/passengers as a personal item. Hence, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is not barred as Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 cannot be relied upon based on the facts and circumstances of this case. Further, since it is a consumer dispute, the appellants are very much consumers as they hired the services of Railways against consideration paid. It may also be added here that it is an admitted fact that the tickets for the said journey were purchased by the appellants from Chandigarh as such, the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint in view of ratio of judgment - Spicejet Limited v. Ranju Aery, 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 739: (2017) 1 CPJ 546, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld the findings of the Hon’ble National Commission to the effect that a consumer can file a complaint within the territory, where he/she has purchased tickets for journey, even through internet also.

11. Now coming to the second and the moot question, whether there is negligence on the part of the Railway Administration in providing measures whereby removal of handbag by an intruder became possible? or say, whether, respondents No.1 to 3, 5 & 7 (Railways) could be held responsible for the theft of belongings of the appellants, which took place in the train on 05.11.2018 or not, it may be stated here that under similar circumstances, this Commission dismissed one such appeal titled Divisional Railway Manager Vs. Seema Arora, First Appeal No.32 of 2022, vide order dated 22.04.2022. However, while dismissing the said appeal, this Commission, in Para 8, held as under:-

“8. The only moot question which needs to be adjudicated by this Commission is, as to whether, the appellant could be held responsible for the theft of belongings of the respondent, which took place in the train on 28.08.2017 or not. It may be stated here that we have gone through the entire record and found that the appellant has not negated the fact that theft took place in the said train. However, the main contention raised by the appellant, through its Counsel, at the time of arguments before this Commission is that it is responsible for taking care of the booked luggage only and that as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, it is not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of unbooked luggage. We do not agree with the contention raised for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

It may be stated here that we are aware of the fact that while travelling in train, the passengers are allowed to carry luggage with certain permissible weight, containing personal belongings etc. alongwith them in train compartments. Mostly, the passengers with a view to have a safe and hassle free journey, prefer to travel in reserved compartments, with the hope that the Railways ensure that only bonafide passengers enter the compartment. The respondent was travelling in AC-II Tier compartment, with a hope that she and her luggage will be taken care of, as the said compartment is provided with adequate security/guard and a TTE. It is evident from the document (Duty List of Train Conductors in 1AC, 2 AC, 3 AC and First Class) at page 46 of the paper book that over and above other the duties mentioned at para nos.1 to 10-14 to 22, the TTE/Train Conductors shall:-

Similarly, it is evident from the list of duties of escorting staff/guard at page 49 of the paper book, that over and above other duties mentioned therein, he is duty bound to prevent entry of beggars, hawkers, unauthorized passengers and heavy luggage inside the coach, especially in the corridors and to keep the corridor and space near bathrooms free from obstructions; and that to keep watch on the corridor of the coach from the Attendant Seat during night time.

However, in the present case, even in the presence of guard and TTE, theft of luggage of the respondent took place. It is significant to mention here that in her complaint in para no.5, it has been specifically pleaded by the respondent-complainant that on 28.08.2017 at around 6.00 a.m. the train suddenly stopped; that she heard hue and cry in the compartment; that she found that the passengers were arguing with the attendant of the compartment; and that thereafter she found that her luggage has also been stolen. In reply to this para, the appellant did not deny the fact that the train was suddenly stopped at around 6.00 a.m. on 28.08.2017. Thus, in the absence of any denial to the fact that the train was suddenly stopped at 6.00 a.m., the appellant has failed to convince this Commission as why such an incident took place on 28.08.2017. Under these circumstances, it can easily be said that it was on account of gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the guard and TTE as they failed to remain vigilant particularly during the night time, to prevent entry of unauthorized persons/intruders in the compartment, which resulted into theft of luggage of the respondent and thereafter, they vanished after stopping the train, might be by pulling its chain.

At the same time, the appellant has failed to prove its case to the effect that it was on account of negligence and carelessness on the part of the respondent that her luggage was stolen by some other passengers sitting in the compartment, especially, on the face of the undisputed fact that the train was suddenly stopped by someone at 6.00 a.m. on 28.08.2017, for which no justification has been given by the appellant. One can well imagine the plight of the respondent-Seema Arora, who was suffering from a disease “Aclasia Cardia” for which she was required to take regular medicines as prescribed by the doctors but on account of the said theft of her luggage which included her medicines also, she faced a lot of difficulty. Thus, she did not only suffer the loss of her valuables but also essential medicines, which fact has definitely caused her mental agony & harassment.

As such, it is a case of breach of common duty of reasonable care, which lies upon all carriers including the Railways. It is not a case where the omission on the part of the Railway officials can be said to be wholly unforeseen or beyond their control. Under these circumstances, the appellant cannot wriggle out from its liability, on the ground that it was responsible for taking care of booked luggage only and not of the unbooked luggage. The appellant was thus deficient in providing proper service to the respondent, which resulted into the theft of her luggage in the manner referred to above. The District Commission was also right in holding so.”

12. In the instant case also, per record, specially, First Information Report (F.I.R) No.0677, which the appellants got registered with Police Station New Delhi Rly. Stn. on reaching New Delhi on 05.11.2018, Annexure A-2, wherein the appellants narrated all the facts about the incident of snatching of lady’s purse by unknow person. In the said F.I.R., it was stated that the appellants were traveling from Chandigarh to New Delhi with family on Goa Sampark Kanti Express Train Coach No.S7, Birth No.71/74 and while traveling from Ambala railway station as soon as the train started some unknown person snatched his wife’s ladies purse, which contained 1-Jewelery Mangalsutra Gold, Earrings, Necklace Chain, Ring, Mobile Phone, HTC 19478693174, working Sim Card, ATM Card, SBI ATM card, Bank of Baroda ATM, Cash Rs.9500/-, Aadhar Card Documents. When no action was taken for almost a month, appellant No.1 (Ram Veer) vide email dated 01.12.2018 written to the respondents at email addresses: [however, in complaint in relief clause, Rs.85,000/- have been claimed on this account] and Bill dated 13.04.2016 of Anmol, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh for the HTC Touch Desire Mobile worth Rs.11,550/-. However, in rebuttal, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, 5 & 7, alongwith their written statement, annexed photocopy of statement of one Amritpreet Singh, STE, CDG dated 23.05.2019, who stated that on 05.11.18, his duty train was from Chandigarh to New Delhi in coach S-5 to S-9 of Train - 12450. The train departed from CDG on time. At the time of checking there were total 17 passengers booked from CDG/UMB to NDLS in coach S7. One passenger was booked from Panipat (as per copy of the chart attached for proof) in the train. As per the complainant, unauthorized persons had entered which was wrong. Only 17 passengers traveled in his coach and no unauthorized person entered in coach S-7. He has further stated that this coach travels empty from Chandigarh to NDLS because coach S-7 has a quota of NDLS. He has further stated that the passenger was telling absolutely untrue. He further stated that neither the complainant nor any other passenger made any complaint to him regarding unauthorized person entering the vehicle during the journey, nor was any information/complaint given to him about theft during the journey and no police complaint was made by the passenger. After going through the statement submitted by Sh. Amritpreet Singh, STE/CDG to the Sr. Divisional Railway Manager,Ambala Cantt., we are of the concerted view that this statement has no legal sanctity, firstly there is a cutting on the date. It seems that the said Amritpreet Singh firstly put the date ‘23/5/18’ and then made it ‘23/5/19’ by overwriting it and secondly, he was not examined as a witness to prove his statement. It is worth mentioning here that the statement seemed to be a procured and fabricated document just to defeat the rightful claim of the appellants and to absolve from liability. The statement has been procured by the opposite parties after filing of the consumer complaint before the District Commission on 10.04.2019. Before the Ld. District Commission, the opposite parties did not place on record the Untrace Report or say Final Form Report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973, which, on direction so issued by this Commission, was brought on record by opposite parties/respondents No.4 & 6. In the Final Form Report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973, dated 06.03.2019 (in FIR No.362 dated 16.12.2018, which the appellants got registered at P.S. GRP A/Cantt, Ambala), it has been stated that during investigation, neither the stolen purse was recovered nor any arrest was made. Not only this, these opposite parties also placed on record Status Report dated 02.02.2022, in the said F.I.R., wherein it has been stated that after registering Case No. 362 dated 16.12.18 U/S 379A IPC, it was sent to ASI Kuldeep Singh. The said ASI went to the railway station, Ambala Cantonment and met ASI Satpal Singh and fellow employees in connection with the platform duty with regard to the incident dated 05.11.18 in the train in question and since the said train had left, so the meeting could not be done. It has further been stated that checking of incoming and outgoing trains was also done but nothing was known about the snatched ladies purse. It has further been stated that the said ASI met the drivers of the car stand & auto stand but the person who committed the crime could not be traced. It has further been stated that then on 05.11.18, after reaching the CCTV camera control room, the said ASI asked to show the footage of the train but no help was received. It has further been stated that special informers were appointed to search for the snatched ladies purse but of no help.

13. Thus, it is proved on record that in the instant case also, it was on account of gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the guard and TTE as they failed to remain vigilant to prevent entry of unauthorized persons/intruders in the compartment, which resulted into theft of luggage of the appellants. The appellants even did not receive any help then and there and ultimately, they got registered the F.I.R on reaching New Delhi. One can well imagine the plight of the appellants, who were travelling as a family and on account of the said snatching/theft of their luggage containing gold ornaments, ATM Cards, cash etc., they faced a lot of difficulty. Thus, the appellants suffered the loss of their valuables, which has definitely caused them mental agony & harassment. As such, it is a case of breach of common duty of reasonable care, which lies upon all carriers including the Railways. It is not a case where the omission on the part of the Railway officials can be said to be wholly unforeseen or beyond their control. Therefore, the finding of the District Commission that there was no substantive and convincing documentary evidence on record to prove that the wife of the complainant was carrying the cash and other valuable things, as alleged in the complaint in her purse, are not sustainable and are incorrect. There is sufficient material available on record, as discussed above, to establish the loss suffered by the appellants. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the complaint deserves acceptance.

14. Now the questions arises, to what relief the appellants/ complainants are entitled to on account of loss suffered by them. As discussed above, though the sum total of two bills of gold purchased from Tanishq dated 11.02.2018 placed on record comes to Rs.94,011.71 i.e. [Rs.47,006.00 + Rs.47,005.71] respectively (totaling Rs.94,001.71ps) but in their complaint, the complainants have claimed Rs.85,000/- on this account. So, we cannot award relief on this account beyond the amount claimed i.e. Rs.85,000/-. The appellants purchased HTC Touch Desire Mobile for Rs.11,550/- in April 2016 and its price has certainly depreciated in these seven years being the electronic device. Therefore, we access the depreciated price of the mobile to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. Besides, the complainants are also held entitled to Rs.9,500/-, the cash which they were having in the purse and further Rs.5,500/- for loss of car keys and the purse (totaling Rs.1,05,000/-). Besides this, the complainants are also held entitled for lump-sum amount of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consumer Complaint No.220 of 2019 is partly accepted with cost against opposite parties No.1 to 3, 5 & 7, who are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-