Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/702

UPENDER DUTT SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NORTHER RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                     Date of Arguments:  24.07.17

     Date of Decision:       02.08.17

First Appeal No. 702/2011

In the matter of:

Upender Dutt Sharma

S/o Late Shri G.S.Sharma

Resident of B-56 Raj Nagar

Jwalapur, Haridwar

(Uttaranchal)                                                                                               …..Complainant                                                                             

 

Vs.

 

General Manager

Northeren Railway Baroda House

Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi                                                                                                …….Opposite Party

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

          Present: Shri Kuldeep Yadav, Counsel for the appellant.

                         Shri S.A. Sattar, Counsel for the respondent.

 

SHRI ANILSRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

                   Short question for adjudication in the appeal filed by Shi Upender Dutt Sharma, resident of Haridwar, assailing the order dated 3oth June 2011 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI, Distt., New Delhi, allowing, having been satisfied with the submission of the complainant that the Railway Administration is responsible for the loss caused to him (complainant) due to entry of unauthorized persons in the reserved compartment, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the Railways to the complainant , is whether the impugned order suffers from any infirmity keeping in view the provisions contained under section 100 of the Railways Act 1989.

2.      Facts of the case relevant for the disposal of appeal are these.

3.      The  complainant before the Ld. District Fora was travelling from Haridwar to Delhi on 13.04.2006 by Mussori Express in Seat No. 6  of the reserved compartment S-8.  He was carrying with him a bag containing his Lap Top, ICICI Bank, State Bank of India, ATM cards, a mobile phone No. 9897106612, a watch, a purse having Rs. 2,000/-, driving licence and the gold rings.  The bag was kept on his berth locked with chain.   There was apparently no difficulty till the train reached Ghaziabad. However a lot of unauthorized passengers entered into that reserved compartment at Ghaziabad and nobody  from the Railway restraining those unauthorized persons to enter, was available.  The complainant went to washroom and on return he found the bag missing.  The complainant thereafter lodged an FIR at Police Post, Old Delhi Railway Station on 14.04.2006 at 8.40 a.m in respect of the incident and the said FIR was numbered 101/2006. Investigation was done by the police but the lost material could not be traced.

4.      The complainant later filed a complaint before the District Fora which complaint was disposed of on 30.06.2011, holding Railway responsible for the loss caused to the complainant and directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant towards loss and harassment.  Not being satisfied with the compensation allowed, the appeal has been filed praying for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order to the extent of awarding inadequate compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and for awarding of the compensation of Rs. 70,000/- as prayed for in the complaint before the District Fora.

5.      This appeal was initially disposed of by this Commission on 18.02.13, dismissing it on the ground of delay but by virtue of an order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 01.08.2014 in RP 2454 of 2013, setting aside the order passed by this Commission, the said appeal was restored on the Board for disposal on merits, in accordance with law.

6.        In these circumstances the appeal was heard by this Commission again on 24.07.2017 when counsel from both sides appeared and advanced their arguments. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

7.        The Ld. Counsel for the complainant again argued that the compensation awarded by the District Fora is too inadequate to compensate the loss and mental agony suffered by him.   He vehemently argued that he is entitled to the compensation of an amount prayed for in the complaint, namely Rs. 70,000/- keeping in view the loss suffered, particularly when the District For a was satisfied that the Railway Administration was responsible for the loss, having not taken proper and necessary steps for restraining the unauthorized passengers from entering the reserved compartment.  The Ld. Counsel again stressed the point that  the Railways are under an obligation to ensure safety and security to the passengers travelling in the reserved compartment.

8.        The Ld. Counsel for the respondents, relying on Section 100 of the Railway Act 1989, has very emphatically argued that it is not the responsibility of the  Railways  to take care of the luggage of the passengers unless deposited with the Luggage Cabin.  Their responsibility is to the extent of ensuring  a berth to a passenger having secured reservation.

9.        We have examined the arguments of both sides and given a thoughtful consideration of the matter.

10.      In the first instance Section 100 of the Railways Act 1989 is reproduced below.

“Responsibility as carrier of luggage—A  railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, deterioration of non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefor 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.

            In the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 03.09.2015 in RP No. 3265/2014, Dinesh Aggarwal vs. Indian Railways (Supra),  it was held that the Indian Railways were not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by passengers with them, unless it is proved that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or any of the employees.

11.      In the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well, in Civil Appeal No. 434738-34739 n 2.7. 2013, Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Union of India (supra) it was concluded that the Railways could not be held responsible for the alleged loss by way of theft at all.

12.      The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of Union of India vs. Rama Shankar Mishra as reported in I 92016) CPJ 123(NC) has held that Railways could have been liable to compensate only if some negligence or misconduct on the part of railway employee was established.  As no such negligence having ever been alleged and established, it  would be difficult to accept the submission of the complainant.

13.      For all these reasons we are of the considered views that the appellant has not been able to make a case for enhancement of compensation.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

14.      We order accordingly.

15.      Copy of our order may be sent to the parties of the case free of cost as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Rules 1987 read with Consumer Protection Regulation 2005.

16.      A copy of this order may be sent to District Fora for information.

            File be consigned to record room.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                           (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL)