PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 2133/2007 – Union of India, Northern Railway Through its DRM, Railway Station, New Delhi through Station Master, Panipat Railway Station, Panipat Vs. Pawan Kumar Mudgil & Ors.  by which, appeal was allowed and complaint was dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that Complainants/petitioners booked tickets for railway journey from Panipat to Jammu and back. The date of journey was 25.4.2006 by train No. 2471 (Swaraj Express). The arrival of train at Railway Station, Panipat was 6.12 A.M. and departure was at 6.15 A.M.  On 25.4.2006, the complainants verified from internet about the status of  train for which they had got booked their tickets, wherein the arrival of train was shown at correct time.  The complainants reached at Railway Station, Panipat at 5.30 A.M. and came to know from the Enquiry Board that the train was coming 45 minutes late from the arrival time. However, the train did not come.  Then on enquiry the complainant came to know from the Station Master that the training was coming 1.15 Hrs. late at platform No. 3.  The complainants were waiting for train at platform No. 3, but to their utter surprise the train came at platform No. 1 for which no announcement was made by the Railway Authorities at the station. Then, the complainants ran towards the platform No. 1 and as the stay of the train at Railway Station was only for three minutes, therefore, in a hasty manner the minor children could be pushed into coach No. S-6 and all the major passengers boarded in a general coach.  It was further stated that in this process the complainants lost two bags containing Rs.11,000/- in cash, jewellery of Rs.20,000/-, clothes valuing Rs.10,000/- and food items. The complainant Pawan Kumar could meet the minor children at Railway Station, Ambala Cantt and till that time the minor children were in a very perplexed condition.  However, in the way from Panipat to Ambala Cantt., biscuits and water etc. were provided to the minor children by the Train Ticket Examiner.  The complainant wanted to make a complaint in the complaint register with the Guard of the train but the Guard refused to give said register to the complainant.  However, some other officials of the Railway Department gave complaint register to the complainant wherein the complainant made complaint at page 23 and 24 dated 25.4.2006. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before District Forum.  OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint before the District Forum was not maintainable and the allegations leveled by the complainants could be proved by way of leading evidence of voluminous nature before the Civil Court.  It was stated that the train No. 2471 was manned by Shri Kuldeep, Guard and not by Raj Kumar on 25.4.2006, as alleged by the complainant. Similarly, the coach No. S-5 and S-6 of the train were manned by Mahabir Singh, head TTE and not by Shri I.B. Tiwari, as stated by the complainants in their complaint. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 32,000/- towards loss of baggage and Rs.20,000/- to each of the petitioners for mental harassment.  Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order  and complaint was dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4.      As there is delay of only 11 days in filing revision petition, delay stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.

5.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of jurisdiction of District Forum to entertain complaint, learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal on the ground that District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and further committed error in allowing appeal on merits; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and compensation be awarded.  On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

6.      Learned State Commission while referring judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in (1995) 2 SCC 479  - The Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council observed that Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for compensation arising out of motor vehicle incident.  Aforesaid judgement is not applicable to facts of the present case, as complainants are not claiming compensation arising out of motor vehicle accident, but claiming compensation for deficiency by OP and Hon’ble Apex Court in many cases held that Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to entertain complaint for loss of luggage from the railway coach.  In such circumstances, it becomes clear that learned State Commission has committed error in holding that complaint was not maintainable before District Forum and I hold that complaint was maintainable before District Forum.

7.      Complainant claimed loss of two bags containing Rs.11,000/- cash, jewellery worth Rs.20,000/- and clothes valuing Rs. 10,000/- and learned District Forum allowed Rs.11,000/- towards cash, Rs. 20,000/- cost of jewellery and Rs.1000/- towards cost of clothes.  Learned State Commission observed that a person going for religious purposes does not carry jewellery with him and further observed that complainant has not disclosed weight of jewellery and name of jewellery and has also not placed any document depicting withdrawal of amount of Rs.11,000/-.  Admittedly, Complainant has not disclosed in his complaint description of jewellery and its weight and in such circumstances, it cannot be presumed only on the basis of allegation of complainant that bags were containing jewellery worth Rs. 20,000/-.  Learned Counsel for petitioner during arguments submitted that petitioners were taking ‘gold chattar’ to offer Vaishno Devi Mata meaning thereby it must be new one but as complainant neither mentioned in the complaint about ‘gold chattar’, nor its weight, voucher, it can be presumed that bags lost were not containing ‘gold chattar’ valuing Rs.20,000/- and in such circumstances, complainants are not entitled to receive Rs.20,000/- towards jewellery as awarded by learned District Forum.

8.      As far Rs.11,000/- cash in the bags, it is not believable because when 10 persons were travelling out of which at least 5 were adult, no one would like to put cash in bag and normally cash is kept in the pocket.  In such circumstances, learned State Commission rightly disbelieved statement of complainant regarding loss of Rs.11,000/- cash for want of cogent and convincing evidence.

9.      Learned District Forum allowed Rs.1,000/- towards cost of clothes misplaced in the incidence which is appropriate and has to be allowed.  Learned District Forum also allowed Rs.20,000/- to each of the petitioners for mental harassment which is on very higher side looking to the deficiency on the part of OP in taking train on Platform No. 1 instead of Platform No. 3 without any proper announcement.  If complainants were unable to board the train with their minor children on account of sudden arrival of train on Platform No. 1 instead of Platform No. 3, they should have cancelled journey and claimed refund instead of shifting minor children to reserved coach and major persons travelling in general coach to avoid inconvenience. As complainant in hurried manner pushed children in reserved coach and other members travelled in general coach which caused mental harassment and agony, it would be appropriate to allow compensation of Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainants instead of Rs.20,000/- allowed by District Forum. 

10.    Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and impugned order dated 8.3.2010 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 2133/2007 – Union of India, Northern Railway Through its DRM, Railway Station, New Delhi through Station Master, Panipat Railway Station, Panipat Vs. Pawan Kumar Mudgil & Ors.  and order of District Forum dated 19.06.2007  passed in Complaint No. 334 of 2006 – Pawan Kumar Mudgil & Ors. Vs. The Northern Railways is partly modified and OP is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards loss of baggage and to each of the complainants Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and harassment within 30 days, failing which, this amount will be payable with 12% p.a. interest for the delayed period.  No costs.