Delhi

New Delhi

EA/17/2014

Smriti Thapar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Northern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

                                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                             (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                     ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                                 NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

 

 

CC No.-586 /2011                                                                                                                        Dated:

In the matter of:  

Smt. Smriti Thapar

W/o Sh. Ashish Thapar

R/o 86-C, B.K.S. Nagar, Ludhiana,

Through her Attorney/ Representative

Mr. Vijay Khosla                                                                                                             …… Complainant

 

                                    Versus

 

NORTHERN RAILWAY

Through its General Manager,

Baroda House,

New Delhi-110001                                                                                                                 ……. Opposite Party

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA- PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                     ORDER

The complainant booked her executive class tickets (PNR No. 2627371376) and was travelling from New Delhi to Ludhiana by Amritsar Shatabdi on 13.10.2009 along with her daughters. The complainant’s age was 35 years at that time and her daughter named Ms. Anya aged 11 years and Ms. Anoushka then aged 9 years. They boarded the train at 4:30 pm on 13.10.2009 in coach no. E-2. They exchanged seats with co-passengers and shifted to the back towards the internal door in the compartment. The complainant was sitting on one side and her daughters were seating on seats across the aisle/passage. The train left New Delhi and after running 10 minutes, when the train was passing under the road bridge near the Sadar Bazar Station, the complainant heard a knock on the outside door. A miscreant looking in his twenties, dark complexion, medium height and was wearing jeans and a dirty T-shirts along with a knotted red scarf around his neck entered the compartment. He opened the internal door where passengers are seated, snatched the handbag of the complainant ran and jumped out of it. The ticket was also in the handbag which was snatched. The complainant raised an alarm and tried to apprehend him but he fled and jumped out of the train.

  The railway officials and co-passengers gathered upon hearing the hue and cry but they expressed sympathy only. On the basis of incident, an F.I.R. No. 142 was lodged on 14.10.2009. Owing to non apprehension of the accused, the police has closed the case. In the meantime, the husband of the complainant was also informed about the incident who were coming to receive them. On reaching Ludhiana, the complaint made by the complainant at GRP Ludhiana is exhibited as Ex CW1/D and stated the loss of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the valuables of ear rings, finger rings, bangles and mobile phones etc.,

              The complainant sent a notice to OP but none appeared and was proceeded as ex-parte. Keeping in view of facts and circumstances, the previous Forum passed an award at 26.09.2013 in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for all the loss including litigation expenses and criminal activity which could have been prevented by adequate measure of RPF personnel etc. was passed in favour of complainant.

              This order was challenged in the Hon’ble State Commission vide orders dated 29.07.2016 in FA No. 1386/2013 set aside the order of this Forum subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant and remanded back the case to this Forum to decide a fresh giving opportunities to the OP.

              OP in its written stated That the complainant under reply is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be dismissed, because the complainant had not come within the deficiency of service as the handbag of the complainant are in the custody of complainant herself and due to that reason goods of complainant has not covered under the definition of services defined in section 2 ‘O’ of the Consumer Protection Act which reads as under:-

  “Service means service of any description which is made available to the potential users and includes the provisions of facilities in connection with Banking, Financing, Insurance, Transport, Processing, Supply of electricity and other energy, based on lodging or both (housing construction), Entertainment, Amusement or surveying of news of other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.”

              Further, it is submitted that the Railway is not responsible for the unbooked luggage. Section – 100 of Railway Act 1989 reads as under:

      “ A Railway Administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of luggage unless a railway servant has booked and given 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 on the part of any of his servant”. This Section is also upheld by the Hon’ble apex Court in Vijay Kumar Jain’s Case. Further, it is submitted that as per Coaching Tariff Rule 506 clause 1,and Rule 506 clause 2 “article taken in to charge are at the entire risk of the owner.” Similarly Rule 146 gives notice to the public “ that they are not accountable for any article unless the same are booked and a receipt for them is given by their clerk or agent.
           The Forum has gone through the arguments of parties and perused the record. The complainant has not placed any ticket or record which could suggest that OP is liable to pay compensation in such kind of incident. Per contra OP has relied on Section 100 of Railway Act, 1989 in which it is clearly mentioned that it is liable in case of loss or non delivery of luggage only in those cases in which the same is booked and receipt is given. The OP has also relied on the tariff rules which states that article taken are at the entire risk of owner.

              The complaint has alleged negligence on part of OP, we are afraid that the same is covered under CP Act. FIR in this case was registered and the recovery of stolen material is within their domain.

   In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant was rightly rejected by the OP. Consequently, we see no merits in this complaint which is hereby dismissed.

This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to record room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on 22/02/2019

 

 (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                                                                           MEMBER