DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.137/2019
Raj Bhadur Tewari
C-26, 2nd Floor Anand Vihar,
Delhi-110092
….Complainant
Versus
Northern Railway
Through General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 14.05.2019
Date of Order : 12.01.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking an award of Rs. 10,75 000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of actual loss i.e 13.12.2013 till realization of the amount along with cost of litigation.
- It is the case of the Complainant that he and his wife availed the services of the OP for travelling from Lucknow to New Delhi and bought a proper ticket for the set travel in train number 12271/NDLS/Duronto on 12/12/2013. It is stated by the Complainant that he along with his wife was returning to Delhi from Lucknow after attending a marriage in the said train in coach number A-1 second AC apartment with PNRno. 2352558859.
- It is stated by them that as soon as the train started moving, some unauthorised person boarded in the compartment and started creating nuisance for which the Complainant and his wife raised objection and also informed the concerned TTE and security staff. Copy of Valid rail ticket is annexed as Annexure C-1. The security staff and the TTE did not take any action against the unauthorised persons.
- It is stated by the Complainant that since his wife and him were coming back from marriage, they were carrying gold and expensive clothes worth Rs. 6,50,000/- in a suitcase which was chained to the berth however, when the train reached the Anand Vihar Railway station, the suitcase was found missing. In this regard, a FIR no. 20130523 was registered at New Delhi Railway Station on 13.12.2013.
- It is further stated by the Complainant that after receiving a call from GRP Moradabad and making 4 trips to Moradabad, he was handed over an open suitcase with few clothes and all his valuables were missing. The order passed by the Ld. ACMM in this regard is annexed as Annexure C-3.
- It is the case of the Complainant that it is the duty of the employees of the OP i.e TTE and Security staff to ensure that unauthorized persons do not travel in reserved coaches. It is further stated that the doors of the coach were also left open that is how the suitcase of the Complainant was lost due to the negligence of the OP.
- It is stated that on account of deficient services of the OP in not able to ensure entry of intruders, the luggage of the Complainant and his wife was lost and consumers have to bear the brunt of the indifferent service provided by the OP.
- The Complainant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in Union of India vs Dr. Shobha Agarwal R.P No.602/2013, Union of India vs K.K Shukla III (2002) CPJ 19 (NC) and General Manager, Southern vs A. Shamim II (2003) CPJ 55 NC .
- Per contra, the OP, in their reply, have taken the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the Commission in view of the decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical case, this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further stated that the present complaint is without any cause of action and as per Section 100 of the Railway Act, Railway administration is not liable for unbooked luggage.
- It is stated that in case the Complainant was carrying the alleged valuables in bag, it was entirely at his own risk as they neither entrusted the goods to the conductor nor booked the same with the railway authorities. Railway cannot be held liable for the loss of any unbooked luggage. It is stated that the Complainant himself was negligent by not keeping valuables safely and he cannot claim any loss from the OP.
- It is also stated that law and order is a subject matter of state and a case has already been got registered by the Complainant at Moradabad, UP. It is stated that the Railway police is not in control of the OP.
- It is further stated that all the items were in custody of the Complainant himself and he is trying to shift the blame onto OP and that there is no evidence adduced on record regarding the items mentioned in the complaint.
The Complainant has filed the rejoinder and both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits and written submissions. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and it is seen that the said case was transferred from ITO, DCDRC on account of territorial jurisdiction by the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 21.08.2018 to the present Commission. Therefore, the issue of jurisdiction stands resolved.
As far as the other preliminary objection of the OP is concerned it is well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati devi M Dhanwatay vs Union of India, 2004 wherein it was has held "Railway Administration cannot escape its liability for negligence and deficiency in service in failing to prevent unauthorized persons assaulting passengers in railway compartment and taking away their luggage."
The present case is also covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radha Ramanathan vs GM, Northern Railway wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC upheld the judgment of the Hon’ble SCDRC which granted compensation to the Complainant in 2019.
The Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in the same matter stated that “From our day to day experience, we know that sometimes it is not possible for us to keep every bill, invoice for each and every article. In this case the respondent/Complainant failed to provide any documentary evidence like bills etc. to support her allegations but she filed her own affidavit. Thus, in our view, a passenger travelling by a train is entitled to carry certain baggage or luggage free of costs. There is no question of entrusting such a baggage/luggage to the railway and getting receipt thereof. It is the duty of the railways to see that every passenger travelling by train reaches his destination safe and sound as once railways issues a ticket to a consumer for travelling by train and permits the consumer to carry luggage it has to ensure for the safety of the passengers and also for the safety of his belongings and any shortcoming or inadequacy or imperfection amounts to deficiency in service and therefore it renders the railways liable to pay compensation as loss or injury including the mental injury suffered by him.”
This matter was upheld by the Hon’ble NCDRC and the appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The facts of the present case are covered by the above stated judgment and therefore we are of the view that the OP is deficient in its services by not providing safe travel to its passengers, in this case, the Complainant. It is seen from the FIR filed on record that the articles in the FIR are fairly same as enumerated in the complaint though the costing of the lost articles have not been provided in detail.It is also seen that the suitcase was later found by the Moradabad police.
The Complainant has not placed on record the marriage card that he was attending and undertook travelling for. Therefore, it cannot be held with certainty that the Complainant was carrying expensive clothes for the said occasion. The Complainant has not provided the breakup value of the lost articles.
Therefore, this Commission is of the view that justice would be done by directing the OP to compensate the Complainant with Rs. 50,000/-for negligence and deficiency in service in failing to prevent unauthorized persons entering the railway compartment and taking away their luggage. This order has to be complied by the OP within two months from the date of the receipt of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the sum till realization.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
