Delhi

South Delhi

CC/219/2018

ALPANA KUMARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NORTHERN RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

 

Case No.219/2018

 

Alpana Kumari

W/o Sh. Chander Shekar Rana,

R/o Vill & P.O. Hatli, The Bangana, Distt Una,

Himachal Pradesh-174307

 

Present and address for Correspondence

 

RZ-B/70A, Bindapur Extn., Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-110059.

 

….Complainant

Versus

General Manager, Northern Railways

Baroda House, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001

 

The Chief Vigilance Officer,

Vigilance Department, Northern Railway,

Headquarters Office, Baroda House, Kasturiba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001

 

        ….Opposite Party

    

 Date of Institution    : 01.08.2018      

 Date of Order            :  25.01.2023     

 

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 refund of the amount for articles lost with interest at market rate along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, interest to the tune of Rs.50,000. OP-1 in this case is General Manager, Northern Railways and OP-2 is Chief Vigilance Officer.

 

1. It is the case of the Complainant that she had booked a rail ticket from Delhi railway station to Una, Himachal Pradesh having PNR no. 2825 1925 39 for train number 14553 Himachal Express for journey on 22042018 in second AC for which she had paid amount of Rs.1800/-. The ticket is annexed as Annexure A 1.

 

2. It is stated by the Complainant that as per schedule on 22.04.2018, the Complainant had not slept up to Karnal i.e till 1:00 AM but as soon as the train arrived at Ambala at 3:00 AM it was noticed that her handbag was stolen by someone. The Complainant raised an alarm and contacted the railway police personnel patrolling at the station but they stated that their duty started from Ambala up to Una and from Delhi to Ambala, no police personnel has been deployed in the train. It is also stated that one other person also lost their bag from the same compartment.

 

3. The Complainant requested the police to lodge an FIR but it was stated by them that since the theft had taken place before Ambala their were unable to do anything and she was advised to lodge a complaint in this matter at Nangal railway station as one of the police post existed there.

 

4. The Complainant left the train before destination at Nangal to get the FIR lodged but she was told that she can only file an application there and the FIR should be lodged at the appropriate place. As per advice an application was filed at Nangal wherein items lost with the handbag were clearly indicated and the copy of this application is annexed as Annexure A 2. It is stated by the Complainant in her FIR that she lost her gold bangles approx. 60 gms each, a mangalsutra approx. 20 gms,  2 rings approx. 10 gms each, a mobile phone of Samsung make, ladies wrist watch Casio Sheen approx. 10,000/- and other misc items worth Rs. 5,000/-.

 

5. On 23.04.2018, at 15:55 a formal FIR was lodged for theft at police station GRP Sirhind U/s 379 of IPC and the copy thereof is annexed as Annexure A 4.

 

6. It is stated by the Complainant that the OP has committed serious deficiency in service and has indulged in unfair trade practice by not deploying any police personnel in their train because of which the Complainant had to suffer an amount of Rs.3,16,000/- on account of the negligence of the OP. It is stated by her that she is liable to be refunded the entire amount of money which she has lost in terms of the articles in the handbag and along with it compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service by the OP on account of physical pain, mental agony and trauma.

 

7. The OP, in their reply have denied the allegations made by the Complainant and have stated that OP-1 General Manager, Northern Railways is not the concerned party to the matter because the issue pertains to the Police Department of the concerned state. It is stated that the matter at hand pertains to a criminal offence for which FIR has already been registered and therefore no consumer complaint is maintainable. It is stated that neither OP-1 nor OP-2 i.e Chief Vigilance Officer are neither necessary nor proper parties to the present case. The OP has also raised the objection of territorial jurisdiction as the incident happened in the train at Ambala railway station and therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the case.

 

8.  It is stated that no evidence has been reduced by the Complainant and support of carrying such items in the stolen handbag. It is also stated that unbooked luggage or personal belongings of the passengers are not the responsibility of the railway administration and therefore no liability can be fastened for loss particularly in case of unbooked items.

 

9. It is also stated that as per section 100 of the railways act 1989, “ a railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss destruction damage deterioration or non delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt thereof and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger and 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 is stated by the OP that the job of OP-1 is only to make the passengers be taken to their destination.

 

10. The OP has also placed reliance on provision of the coaching tariff clause 506. 2 which deals with luggage in charge of the second class passengers which is applicable to the present case. as per this clause “Article taken into the carriage are at the entire risk of the owner”, similarly another clause gives notice to the public “that they are not accountable for any article unless the same are booked and the receipt for them is given by their clerk or agents”, therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

 

11. It is also stated by the OP that the Complainant has not provided any name of the TTE or any attendant who was working during that journey as to who informed them about the train being not manned from Delhi to Ambala.

 

12. The Complainant, in its rejoinder have refuted the objections raised by the OP in their reply and it is stated that the Complainant bought the reserved ticket in AC coach expecting that the journey can be enjoyed with safety and security. It is also stated that in the case of M. Kanthimathi vs Govt. of India Hon’ble NCDRC has held that section 100 is not applicable in case of theft of jewellery in the running train.

 

13. It is stated by the Complainant that as per the website of the Indian Railways the rule of the railway protection force i.e RPF is amongst others “RPF will be legally unable to provide protection and safeguard to the passenger and his luggage which will ensure better passenger facilitation”. In this case the RPF, TTE and coach attendant on the train totally failed to prevent the entry of unauthorised personnel during the night and therefore committed deficiency in services. In the case of Union of India v Sanjeev Dilsukhrai Dave, 2003 CTJ 196 CP, Hon’ble  NCDRC has held that major responsibility of the TTE in addition to examining the tickets is that of ensuring that no intruders enter the reserved compartments.

 

Both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. The OP has raised the objection relating to territorial jurisdiction without any evidence. In view of the fact that the Complainant was travelling from Delhi to Una and that the headquarters of the OP is also situated within the territorial limits of this Commission, therefore this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

 

As far as the other preliminary objection of the OP is concerned that this matter is within the jurisdiction of state, this issue is well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumatidevi 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."

 

This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and it is seen that the OP-1 has been deficient in its services by not providing adequate security in reserved coaches where by the Complainant had to suffer loss of her bag which contained certain valuable items.

 

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 that the Complainant has placed on record the bill of the gold bangles that that she lost in the stolen handbag but none of the other bills are attached along with the complaint or with the evidence to prove that she had the other gold that is being referred to in the FIR however we take guidance from the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in Radha Ramanathan vs GM, Northern Railway and therefore, we are of the view that the OP is liable to refund and amount of Rs.1,69,161/- being the cost of the bangles and Rs.25,000/- on account of lost phone and other items to the Complainant on account of her other lost gold and an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and trauma that the Complainant had to undergo. This entire amount would be payable to the Complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay the amount of Rs. 1,94,161/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of receipt of the order till realization.

File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.