DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

         This appeal has been directed against order dated 05.11.2014 in CC No. No.201/2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II (in short, District Forum). By the impugned order, the case has been allowed.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the OPs thereof have preferred this appeal.

        The case of the Complainants is that they purchased two online  tickets from  Kolkata under Tatkal   Quota for journey from Howrah to Jaunpur in 13009 Doon Express on 03.02.2014,  being PNR No. 6624110998, Coach No. S/11, totalling an amount of Rs. 870/-. Accordingly, they started journey on 03.02.2014 at 20.30 hrs. and at about 3.30 am to 4.00 am on 04.02.2014, after awakening from sleep they found that red coloured suitcase was stolen by some unknown person which contained one golden chain, maang-tika, four gold rings, two golden lockets, one pair of hanging earrings, two nose rings, one pair of baali, one mangal-sutra, two pairs of payal, two pairs of silver bindiya, Rs.22,000/- in cash, lehanga-chunri, six sarees and other materials. On search, Complainant No. 2 did not find the T.T.E or any personnel of the Railway Protection Force in the said compartment. Thereafter, Complainant No. 2 narrated the entire story with the toll free number of the OPs, but they did not respond. Lastly, on reaching Jaunpur  Junction, the Complainants contacted the GRP and lodged general diary on 04.02.2014, which was treated as FIR No. 03/2014, u/s 379 of the IPC. Accordingly,  the case.

          On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the alleged cause of action  did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction  of the Ld. Forum. The Complainants also did not take the required permission of the Ld. Forum u/s 11 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That train was manned by the ticket checking staff of East Central Railway from Howrah to Mughalsarai  and the alleged theft took place between Kodarma and Paharpur Stations, which also fall within the jurisdiction of the East Central Railway, but it  has not been made an OP in the complaint case.  The toll free telephone number of Customer Care  belongs to Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC), which has not been made an OP. Further, Gaya Staion falls within the jurisdiction of East Central Railway. Furthermore, the Government Railway Police at Jaunpur falls under the administrative control of the concerned State Government Police authority and not under the control of the OPs. Pertinently,  the Railway has no liability on the luggage of the passengers, which is not booked with the Railway, unless it is proved that theft took place due to the negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway servant, in pursuance of  Section 100  of the Railways Act, 1989. Accordingly, the complaint is liable to dismissed.

            It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of anomaly so as to make an interference in this appeal.

Decision with reasons

             Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has stressed upon the maintainability  of the case on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum concerned, also  that East Central Railway should have been made a party  in the case being a necessary party. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble  Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Jain Vs Union of India & Anr. in  SLP (Civil) Nos. 34738 - 34739/2012  and decisions of the  Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. Nos. 2182/2010, 4449/2010, 858/2005, 2025/2009, 95/2005 and 2768/2013 and those reported in IV (2010) CPJ 191 (NC) and III (2010) CPJ 241 (NC).

            Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that theft is an admitted fact. The liability of the Railways can not be denied. There is nothing wrong in the impugned order. In this respect, he has relied upon two decisions of the Hon’ble National  Commission in RP Nos. 2810/2015 and 1862/2015.

            On perusal of the materials on record, it is found that there is nothing to  interfere in the impugned order in so far as the compensatory amount as awarded against the OPs, but in respect of punitive damages, the same is struck off. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified. Appeal stands partly allowed.