Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 20.02.2018, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner herein has been dismissed and the order dated 05.06.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, Vishakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Consumer Case No. 156/2011, preferred by the Respondent herein, has been upheld.

It appears that the Respondent was travelling by train from Secunderabad to Vishakhapatnam by 2^nd class AC coach in Godavari Express, bearing Train No. 2728, on 20.04.2009.  In her suitcase, she had kept some gold ornaments, which were found to have been stolen on 21.04.2009 in the wee hours before the destination, at which the Respondent was to de-board, reached.  A case was lodged with the Government Railway Police and the person, who had committed theft, was nabbed after some time.  The Respondent filed the afore-noted Complaint before the District Forum, claiming a total compensation of ₹14,10,000/- towards the value of gold ornaments, compensation for causing mental agony and costs.

The District Forum awarded a lump-sum amount of ₹1,00,000/- towards gold ornaments as also compensation for causing harassment and mental agony, and costs of ₹5,000/-.

In the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner, the State Commission has recorded the following findings:

“8.      We have considered the above contentions and examined the material on record.  There cannot be any dispute that the Railways are not responsible for loss of certain articles like the gold ornaments unless they are booked as contemplated under section 103(3) of the Act and the other allied Rules.  We are unable to apply the said provision of law to the case on hand because of certain indisputable facts.  The theft had taken place during the intervening night of 20 & 21^st April, 2009.  The respondent registered the complaint at the earliest point of time at 5.30 AM on 21.04.2009 when the train was at Duvvada Railway Station which is the outskirts of Visakhapatnam City.  Though the complaint was lodged during the course of the journey, we do not find that the coach conductor by name G. Venkata Ram ji who is said to be on the train did not make any efforts to enquire with the passengers to ascertain the facts.  He simply accompanied the respondent to the Police Station when she wanted to lodge the complaint.  It is not in dispute that after conducting investigation, the Police nabbed the culprit and recovered some of the gold ornaments as is evident from Ex. B3 Panchnama.  From these incontrovertible evidence it can be safely concluded that some unauthorised persons had entered the compartment and committed theft.  In our view when some persons had entered the compartment unauthorisedly, that itself would prove negligence on the part of the appellant – Railways.  Moreover the appellant has not explained as to why the TTE was not present in the coach during the night to keep a watch on the intruders.  We are therefore of the considered view that Rules apart, the appellant – Railways has not protected the property of the respondent by negligence.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Forum on this aspect of the matter.”

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, as the person, who had committed the theft, had been nabbed and, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon the Petitioner for payment of compensation of ₹1,00,000/- as also costs of ₹5,000/-. 

In support of his submission, the Learned Counsel relied upon a decision of this Commission in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rama Shanker Misra & Anr., I (2016) CPJ 123 (NC) and submitted that in the absence of any averment in the Complaint, constituting any negligence or misconduct or deficiency in service on the part of the Railway or any of its employees, the liability of compensation cannot be fixed on the Petitioner.  The Learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of this Commission in the case of Vivek Chhibba v. South East Central Railway, rendered in Revision Petition No. 1939 of 2016, decided on 20.01.2017, for the same proposition.

We have considered the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.  The same is devoid of any merit for the simple reason that in the Complaint itself, in para (e), (mentioned twice at page 59 of the paper-book), the Respondent had specifically mentioned about the negligence of the Petitioner staff.  The said paragraph is reproduced below:

“e)      the complainant respectfully submits that the complainant lost her belongings solely on account of the negligence of the opposite party in not providing proper security to check on those persons who enters the reserved compartments without any valid reserved tickets and watch their movements while boarding and alighting the compartment and even though the attenders and ticket examiners were provided in the air condition coaches, but either on account of their casual approach in guarding the movements of the intruders or their collusion with the unsocial elements, the complainant lost the jewels in the suit case.”

A perusal of the said paragraph shows that a specific averment regarding negligence of the Railway authorities was pleaded, which has been accepted by the State Commission in the paragraph also reproduced above. 

We, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission in our revisional jurisdiction.  The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.