DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 465/10
Zameer Ahmed
1110, Mahalla Kishan Ganj
Telewara, Delhi -Complainant
Vs
Chairman, Railway Board,
Ministry of Railways
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi -Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 13.07.2010 Date of Order: 12.08.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
S.S. Fonia, Member
Succinctly narrated, the complainant purchased a circular travel ticket for his business tour from Delhi Railway Station and commenced his journey on Sleeper Class Circular ticket No. 910930 (Annex. A). On 25.5.2009 the complainant is said to have boarded from Patna in S-5 Coach of Sampurn Kranti Express on the last leg of his journey. Soon after boarding on sleeper class coach S-5 of Sampurn Kranti Express the complainant was frisked and physically searched by two GRP Personnel on duty. The complainant cooperated with them and is said to have told them that he was carrying cash in deep pockets of his underwear. There were around 80 passengers and two GRP Personnel and TTE without name badges in the S-5 Coach of Sampurn Kranti Express. The complainant further states that in between Mughal Sarai and Kanpur Railway Stations, the cash being carried out by him amounting to Rs. 47,200/- was taken out from complainant’s deep underwear pockets by cutting his trousers and underwear by a sharp edged weapon around midnight while complainant was sleeping in the moving train. He after being aware of this crime raised an alarm and approached GRP Personnel and TTE on duty to report it and seek their help but they responded in rude manner and blamed him for this crime and did not handover the complaint form. He also enquired from the fellow passengers next to him. One of them whispered that a plain clothed youngman escorted by the two Armed GRP Personnel on duty had committed this crime and TTE was not far behind from the crime scene. The complainant further states that it is only after reaching New Delhi Railway Station that Zero FIR No. 0198/09 was lodged. The complainant had been running from pillar to post to bring the criminals to book as well as for compensation for loss suffered due to direct involvement/negligence/deficiency in security to passengers by the employees/subordinates of the Public transport. A series of RTI applications had been made but the OP had not recorded the statements of fellow passengers though their names and addresses were part of Railway Reservation record. He further complaints that “a case Closure Report without any supply of copy and information about next date of hearing and Court to the Complainant is filed just to protect them”. Aggrieved by the attitude of the OP, the complainant has moved this forum to seek compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh for the loss suffered, mental agony, torture due to direct/indirect involvement/deficiency in service/failure to protect its passengers against any untoward incidents in a moving train and also sought Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP has filed written statement denying all the averments made by the complainant. It is stated that the alleged theft, if any, that happened between Kanpur and Mughal Sarai, which is under the Mughal Sarai Division (North Central Railway), hence, the N.C. Railway is the proper and necessary party to file a meaningful reply to the complaint. It is stated that the complainant did not file proof with respect to the money which he was carrying with him. It is also stated that the complainant had filed parallel proceedings before the conciliation cell at CDRF K.G. Marg and the same was closed as the complainant did not appear. It is further stated that as per Section 100 of the Indian Railway Act, the O.Ps cannot be held liable unless it is proved that the loss occurred on account of negligence of the Railway Employee. There has to be cogent evidence with respect to the direct nexus of the Railway Employee with the alleged negligence. It is further submitted that in findings of GRP, the allegations against GRP & TTE were not substantiated as revealed at hearing in CIC. OP reserves right to detail reply later in this regard. Denying any negligence on the part of the OP’s employees, the OP has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating his own averments. He has further reiterated that the proof of money was given to the Railway authorities a number of times but during criminal investigation OP neither denied mishappening nor deliberately recorded the statement of fellow passengers to save the skin of its erring employees.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. V.D. Meena, ACM, Northern Railway, New Delhi has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments of the complainant and counsel for the OP and have also carefully perused the material on record placed before us.
Now we straightway come to deal with the question, whether the relief prayed for is admissible or not?
We find that OP has not denied theft of cash of Rs. 47,200/- of the complainant. Copy of FIR No. 0198/09 dated 26.5.2009 though not exhibited is on record. For the purposes of identification, the same is marked as Annexure ‘A’. Theft had indeed taken place between Mughal Sarai and Kanpur Railway Station which is within the territorial jurisdiction of North Central Railway under overall control of OP. In view of apparent negligency and lack of prompt action by OP, Section 100 of the Indian Railway Act is not applicable in the case at hand. OP has not filed the copy of order passed by the CIC. The OP, therefore, cannot escape from its responsibility to protect the interest of passengers including theft of cash etc. Our views are in consonance with the order of National Commission in RP No. 4723 of 2013 – Indian Railways & Ors Vs. Anchal Garg decided on 06.01.2014.
We, therefore, allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs. 60,000/- in lumpsum towards principal amount, harassment, mental agony and litigation charges to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay Rs. 60,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 12.08.2016
Case No. 465/10
11.8.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs. 60,000/- in lumpsum towards principal amount, harassment, mental agony and litigation charges to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay Rs. 60,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till realization. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
