DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No : 171/2014
Date of Institution : 5.8.2014
Date of Decision : 9.3.2015.
In the matter of:
Aarti Goyal wife of Deepak Goyal resident of H.No. B-XIV-928, Akalgarh Basti, Near Gurudwara, Barnala, Tehsil & District Barnala.
...Complainant
Versus
M/s Goyal Tours and Travels, K.C. Road, Near Maharishi Balmiki Mandir, Barnala, through its Prop.
Station Master, Railway Station, Barnala, District Barnala.
Station House Officer, General Railway Police, Railway Station, Barnala, District Barnala.
...Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
1. Sh. Sukhpal Singh Gill : President.
Sh. Karnail Singh : Member.
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member.
For the complainant : Sh. R.K. Singla, Advocate
For the opposite party No. 1 : Sh. Y.P. Bansal, Advocate
For the opposite party No. 2 : Sh. N.K. Singla, Advocate
For the opposite party No. 3 : Sh. Rajwinder Singh HC in person on behalf of opposite party No. 3.
ORDER: BY SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:
Aarti Goyal complainant (herein referred as to CC for short), has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein referred as to O.Ps for short), on the ground that, CC purchased railway Tickets from the O.P-1, for AC Coach, from Delhi to Barnala, for 22.6.2014 of Train No. 12455, for her family, by paying an amount of Rs. 2,122.47, to the O.P-1 on 8.6.2014.
It is alleged that, O.P-1 told the CC that, the AC Coach is fully secured by GRP guards and CC with her family can safely travel at night. The O.Ps-1 & 2 further assured the CC that, in case of any theft, mishappening or loss during the journey, the O.Ps will be liable for the same. On the assurance of the O.Ps-1 & 2, CC purchased AC Coach tickets and paid huge amount for the same.
The allegation of the CC is that, on 23.6.2014 in the early hours, CC got up for call of nature and found that, all the luggage of the CC were intact. CC alongwith her family reached Barnala at about 4 AM and found that, her one Red stroll Bag was torn and her cherry colour purse was stolen by someone. The said purse contained Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- in cash, 4 silver coins, voter ID Card, ATM Card of SBI and key of IDBI Bank Locker, Barnala.
It is further alleged that, CC immediately informed the O.Ps-2 & 3, regarding the theft of purse and asked them to lodge an FIR, but O.Ps-2 & 3 started making excuse on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to lodge complaint regarding theft of purse by saying that, if they lodge the complaint of theft, in that event their responsibility will increase and O.Ps -2 & 3 will have to trace the culprit. The O.Ps-2 & 3 asked the CC to lodge the complaint regarding misplacement of articles. The O.Ps-2 & 3 assured the CC that, they will recover all the articles of the CC.
It is alleged that, under such circumstances and assurance of the O.Ps-2 & 3, CC was forced to lodge the complaint regarding misplacement of articles. CC visited the office of O.Ps-2 & 3 number of times to know the fate of stolen articles, but all in vain.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service and un-fair trade practice on the part of the OPs, CC has sought the following reliefs.-
a) OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in cash, 4 silver coins, alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of theft i.e. 23.6.2014 till its realization.
b) Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,200/- as litigation expenses.
The complaint of the CC is signed and is also verified.
2. In reply, O.P-1 has raised a number of legal objections on the ground that, as per provisions of Section 13, 15 and 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 this Forum has got no 'jurisdiction' to entertain and try the present complaint. Further, as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 the Railway is not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of any luggage, unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt thereof. The complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Further, CC has not come to the Forum with clean hands etc.
On merits, all the allegations of the complaint are denied. It is averred that, railway tickets for four adult persons for performing journey on 22.6.2014 through Train No. 12455 under General Category, was purchased by a passenger with address Goyal Ice Cream Parl, Barnala, on 8.6.2014, from the O.P-1.
It is denied that, CC ever inquired from the O.P-1, regarding security or the O.P-1 ever assured the CC about security in case of theft, mishappening or loss during the journey.
It is averred that, as per the contents of the application dated 23.6.2014 moved by the CC, in her own handwriting to the O.P-3, on the basis of which DDR No. 3 dated 23.6.2014, has been registered by the O.P-3. CC herself got the DDR registered regarding the loss of articles mentioned in the application. Further, nothing is mentioned in the application about cutting/tearing of any bag and theft or any of her purse containing amount, as alleged in the complaint.
It is averred that, CC never lodged any complaint with the security staff, provided in the Train, from starting point with regard to any alleged theft/loss during journey.
Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP-1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The version of the OP-1 is signed and verified.
In reply, the O.P-2 has also raised the same legal objections, as raised by the O.P-1. On merits, the O.P-2 adopted the version of O.P-1.
Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP-2 has also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The version of the OP-2 is signed and verified. Further, the same is supported by an affidavit of V.D. Meena, Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.
In reply, the O.P-3 has also raised a number of legal objections on the ground that, CC is not the 'consumer' of O.P-3. CC has not come to the Forum with clean hands. Further, complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the O.P-3. The 'jurisdiction' of this Forum is also challenged.
On merits, it is submitted that, on receipt of application from the CC on 23.6.2014, report No. 3 dated 23.6.2014 was lodged by the O.P-3. It is denied that, O.P-3 ever refused to lodge any report of the CC. It is also denied that, CC was forced to lodge the complaint regarding misplacement of any of her articles, by the O.P-3.
Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP-3 has also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The version of the OP-3 is signed and verified.
3. The CC in support of her complaint has tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13, which included her own affidavit, copy of order dated 15.7.2014, copy of electronic reservation slip, copy of application, copy of postal receipts, copy of letter, copy of DD dated 19.9.2014, copy of letter No. 30005, trolly bag in question etc., and has closed her evidence.
4. On the other hand, O.P-1 in support of its version has tendered into evidence an affidavit of Kaushlya Devi as Ex.O.P1 and has closed his evidence. The O.P-2 in support of its version has tendered into evidence affidavit of Praveen Gaur Dwivedi as Ex.O.P2/1 and has closed his evidence. Further, the O.P-3 in support of its version has tendered into evidence Ex.O.P3/1 to Ex.O.P3/6, which included copy of Roznamcha dated 23.6.2014, statement of Madan Lal, statement of Sohan Singh, statement of Vijay Kumar, statement of Kewal Singh and statement of Satnam Singh and has closed his evidence.
5. We have gone through the complaint, versions filed by the O.Ps, evidence tendered by the parties and hearing the arguments of the parties at length.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P-2 has argued that, as per provisions of Section 13, 15 and 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 this Forum has got no 'jurisdiction' to entertain and try the present complaint and as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, the Railway is not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of any luggage, unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt thereof.
During arguments, Ld. Advocate for the CC has cited one judgment of the Hon'ble Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, 2014 (4) CLT 119 in case titled Northern Railway & Others, wherein, it is held that, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 3 & Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, Sections 13 & 15 - Railways – Bar of Jurisdiction – Railway charged excess fair from passenger – Plea of OP that the Consumer Fora did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint when remedy for the same was available under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987- Held – No doubt the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 barred the jurisdiction of other Courts, there is no provision in the same for awarding compensation for the deficiency – Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to try complaint.
We have gone through the judgment cited by the Advocate for the CC and are of the view that, this judgment is not applicable in the present case, as the matter of this case is altogether different from the present complaint.
On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the O.P-2 in support of his arguments, has cited some judgments, which are as under:-
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in First Appeal No. 411 of 1996 in case titled Union of India & Ors. Vs Sri Ramji Enterprises & Anr.
Section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 – Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum barred.
Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act – does not override other provisions of law.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, 2012 (IV) CPJ 634, in case titled Southern Railway Vs Stalin Herald, wherein, it is held that, Railway Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 – Sections 13(1)(a), 15 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Bar of jurisdiction – Complaint – Maintainability – Household goods sent through railway carriage – Articles missing – District Forum awarded compensation for loss – State Commission dismissed appeal – Hence revision – Consumer Court is barred to entertain complaint as per Sections 13(1)(a) and 15 of Act, 1987 – Complaint not maintainable.
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, 2012 (2) CLT 365, in case titled Narender Kumar Vs Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Sonepat & Ors., wherein, it is held that, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2(1) (g) and 14 – Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, Sections 15, 15 and 28 – Railways – Theft of bag – jurisdiction – Deficiency in service – Compensation – Held that the theft claims during railway journey can be filed before Railway Claims Tribunal and the Consumer Fora have got no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint – Appeal liable to be dismissed.
In view of the aforementioned facts, circumstances and citations, we don’t find any merit in the present complaint, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost or compensation. However, the CC is at liberty to approach the Appropriate Authority for the redressal of her grievance. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion, be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
9th day of March, 2015
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
