JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant/respondent was travelling from Delhi to Howrah on 11.09.2012 in a reserved A.C. III Tier Coach.  During the travel, complainant no. 2 was carrying 2 bags and complainant no. 1 was carrying a ladies purse alleged to be containing two gold kadas valued at Rs.1,50,000/-.   Complainant no. 2 was also carrying a wrist watch, two mobile phones and cash amounting to Rs.19,000/-.  When the train reached Mughal Sarai Station at about 06:15 am, a beggar woman boarded the coach in which the complainants were travelling and committed theft of the ladies purse being carried by complainant no.1. The aforesaid beggar woman was searched, apprehended and handed over to the railway officials.  The matter was also reported to the Head T.T.E.  This is also the case of the complainant that the coach attendant was not available in the coach from Delhi to Mughal Sarai.  Alleging negligence on the part of the petitioner, the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking compensation for the loss suffered by them. 

2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner who denied their liability relying upon the provisions contained in Section 100 of the Railways Act. 

3.      The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainants and having directed payment of compensation quantified at Rs.1,41,000/- alongwith cost of litigation quantified at Rs.5,000/- and compensation for mental agony quantified at Rs.15,000/-, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.  

4.      The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Devi Vs. Union of India Civil Appeal No.2252 of 1999 decided on 06.04.2004.  In the aforesaid decision, the complainant was carrying luggage including gold, pearl, silver etc. when some unauthorized persons entered the coach and committed illegal acts including assaulting the passengers.  The complainant pulled the chain three times as a result of which, it stopped at another station.  No assistance however, was offered to her.  On reaching Mumbai, she lodged a complaint with the police and approached the concerned State Commission seeking compensation.  The complaint was resisted by the railways.  The State Commission allowed the complaint but in an appeal preferred by the railways, the order passed by the State Commission was set aside by this Commission.  Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of an appeal.  Setting aside the decision rendered by this Commission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter-alia held as under:

“It is not a case where the omission on the part of the railway officials can be said to be wholly unforeseen or beyond their control. Here there has been a complete dereliction of duty which resulted in a precious life being taken away, rendering the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution illusory. Had the deceased not pulled the alarm chain with a view to stop the train, the position might have been different. Liability in this case is fault based. Such a liability is not inconsistent with the scheme of the Railways Act of 1890 either (refer Section 80 with advantage). The proof of a fault in this case is strong and Mr. Goswami has not rightly challenged it either. To relegate the appellant to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal or the Civil Court, as suggested by Mr. Goswami, does not appear to us to be proper.”5.      The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Section 13, 15 & 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and submits that it is only the Claims Tribunal which has jurisdiction over the matter.  The aforesaid provision came up for consideration of this Commission in RP No.196 of 2016 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Syed Mubuddin Rizvi and the following view was taken:

“5.      Section 13, 15 & 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 reads as under:

13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal.--(l) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act-

(a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter-VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for-

(i)  compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway;

(ii)  compensation payable under section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and

(b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway.

    1[(1A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of section 12A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claim for compensation now payable by the railway administration under section 124A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder ]

    (2) The provisions of the 2[Railways Act 1989 (24 of 1989)1 and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act.

15. Bar of jurisdiction;--On and from the appointed day no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in 3[sub-sessions (1) and (1A) of section 13.

28. Act to have overriding effect,--The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

It would thus be seen that the jurisdiction of a court or an authority other than the Railway Claims Tribunal would be barred only in the matters in which the said tribunal would have jurisdiction in terms of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. A perusal of Section 13 as extracted hereinabove would show that the said tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant compensation to a passenger who has lost the luggage being carried by him with him on account of the negligence of a railway employee. The jurisdiction of the tribunal is restricted to the goods or animals entrusted to the railway administration for carriage and compensation payable under Section 82A & 124A of the railways Act. Though the tribunals would also have power to award compensation on account of an untoward incident in terms of Section 124A of the Railways Act, the compensation on account of loss of the carriage being carried by a passenger with him does not come under the jurisdiction of the Railways Claims Tribunal. Consequently, the jurisdiction of courts and other authorities would not be barred in respect of such a claim.”

6.      The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon Section 100 of the Railways Act.  The aforesaid provision was also considered by this Commission in Syed Mubuddin Rizvi (supra) and the following view was taken:

“ 6.      As regards Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 on which reliance is placed by the petitioner reads as under:

        “Responsibility as carrier of luggage – A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration of non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a 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 misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants”.

        It would thus be seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways on any of its employees.”

The same was the view taken by this Commission in R.P. No.3799 of 2014 Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwalla & Anr. decided on  26.05.2015.

7.      The learned counsel for the petitioner now relies upon Section 103 of this Commission.  The aforesaid provision, in my view, has no applicability to a case where compensation is claimed on account of negligence on the part of the railway officials. 

8.      Coming to the alleged negligence on the part of the petitioners, it is not in dispute that the complainants were travelling in a reserved compartment.  In the complaint filed before the concerned District Forum, the petitioners did not dispute the aforesaid position.  They also did not dispute the allegation of the complainants that a beggar woman had entered the reserved compartment at Mughal Sarai railway station and had committed theft of the purse being carried by complainant no.1.  Since the complainants were travelling in a reserved compartment, it was the duty of the railway officials to ensure that no unauthorized person entered the said compartment at Mughal Sarai railway station.  By not preventing the entry of a beggar woman in a reserved compartment, the railway officials committed an act of gross negligence and since the aforesaid negligence resulted into a theft, they are also liable to reimburse the complainants for the loss suffered by them.

9.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find that the view taken by the fora below does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed.