NORTHERN RAILWAYS V/S SHRUTI GOYAL - Consumer Court Case

Delhi

North

CC/172/2021

SHRUTI GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

NORTHERN RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP KUMAR

24 Sep 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Phone: 011-23969372; 011-23912675 Email: confo-nt-dl@nic.in

Consumer Complaint No.:172/2021.

Ms. Shruti Goyal

D/o Mr. Dalip Goyal,

H. No.1187, Shora Kothi,

Clock Tower,

Delhi-110007. … Complainant

Northern Railways

Through its Senior DCM

Divisional Railway Manager Office

NDCR Building, State Entry Road,

New Delhi-110055. … Opposite Party

ORDER

24/09/2024

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

1). The present complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The details of allegations levelled by the Complainant against OP, in the Complaint in hand, are that:-

a. Complainant had booked a train ticket online on 02.01.2021 using internet for herself to travel from Nizamuddin Railway Station to Pune junction in Goa Express having PNR no. 2543051481, coach S5, Seat no. 17 under ladies quota. Copy of the Train tickets dated 14.01.2021 of the Complainant has been annexed with the complaint as ‘Annexure-A’.

b. After boarding the train i.e. Goa Express from the Nizamuddin Station at around 2:50pm, the complainant found that there was no loops for chains due to which complainant arranged her luggage just before her seat for safety. (Photos of seat in Goa Express have been annexed with the complaint as ‘Annexure-B’).

c. On 14.01.2021, during the journey, 2 female and 3 children (2 of the 3 children were aged about 15 years) boarded the train at Mathura Station with 2 tickets only and despite not having requisite tickets, the concerned TTE allowed the aforesaid persons to travel and did not even impose fine on them for improper and insufficient tickets. These passengers de-boarded the train at Agra Station at about 10:00pm.

2). It has further been alleged that at the time of departure of the abovesaid train from the Agra station, many male passengers boarded the train and started sitting on the vacant seats falling under ladies quota. Therefore, the Complainant along with some other passengers requested the male persons not to sit on seats reserved for ladies but they started arguing badly and ultimately, they left the seats reserved for ladies. Further at the Bhopal station, 3 male persons boarded the abovesaid train and sat on the seats reserved for ladies. When Complainant and other female passengers objected to this, they told that “they have their reservation for these seats” but when Complainant and other fellow passengers requested them to show their tickets for such seats then they told that “TTE of the respective train has allotted them to sit over those vacant seats till Bhusawal after taking money from them. After continuous requests and argument, the aforesaid persons started misbehaving and remained seated over the seats reserved for ladies. This incident occurred at about 2:00 AM. After this incident, the Complainant awake till Itarsi Station at about 4:30 AM and male passengers were still sitting on the ladies seats. The Complainant being tired slept and woke up in the morning at Jalgao Station and found her luggage missing and the said male passengers who were travelling without tickets on the ladies seats, were also not available in the compartment. The Complainant searched for her luggage all around at every possible place and asked to the fellow passengers about her missing luggage but she could not find her luggage. Thereafter, she pulled the chain of the train and RPF personnel came there and she informed them about the theft of her luggage. Despite that the RPF personnel asked Complainant to search the luggage in the train only. Meanwhile, Complainant approached the TTE and informed him about the entire incident and requested him to provide the details of the male passengers who were travelling without ticket on ladies seats but she came to know that the TTE was changed and at the end, Complainant informed her family about the aforesaid incident.

3). The Complainant also tried to call the security Helpline number at 182 and 1512 but the concerned numbers were not getting connected. The family members of Complainant contacted to the Railway Police and informed them about the theft of the luggage of Complainant and one inspector called to Complainant and asked some details regarding the luggage as well as some personal details of Complainant. The Complainant was able to contact the Police at Manmad Junction and came to know that Police has written a complaint in Marathi language and when she raised an issue regarding the wrong mentioning of the station name in the complaint then they started arguing with Complainant. After so much of requests and difficulty, the said Police official changed the station name in the complaint. The complaint being in Marathi language, Complainant was not able to read it properly and she was made to sign the complaint even without reading over or telling the complete contents of it. However, despite several requests, Complainant was not provided with the copy of the aforesaid complaint but after so many requests, she was allowed to take a picture of the same and that too, in a very hurried manner. It has also been stated that Complainant also told the Police officials about the issue of allowing male persons to sit in ladies compartment by the TTE of sleeper coach and expressed her suspicion on the said passenger’s involvement in the theft of her luggage. The Complainant also requested for the CCTV footage of the respective stations but all the requests of Complainant were out rightly rejected. (Copy of the picture of complaint taken by the Complainant has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure-C).

4). It has been further alleged the said complaint does not even contain complete facts and details of the missing luggage as well as the incident. The Complainant was informed to lodge an FIR at Pune Station. During the journey, she received numerous calls from the Police Stations to know about the said incident. The Police officials were trying to pressurise Complainant for changing the Station names in the complaint but no official was bothered to even check the CCTV footage pertaining to the said incident. At about 4:00 PM (after passing of almost 7 hours of occurring the incident), the Complainant received a call from the Jalgao Station and informed that they have just received the complaint of Complainant. The Complainant tried to lodge an FIR at Pune Station but Pune Police officials categorically denied registering the FIR of Complainant and ultimately, she lodged the zero FIR at Nizamuddin Station, Delhi on 20.01.2021 after reaching Delhi. (Copy of FIR dated 20.01.2021 has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure-D).

5). The Complainant has not received even a single call from the Police Station or the concerned officials of Railways till filing of complaint regarding the theft of her luggage in the said train. Whenever Complainant or her family members tried to inquire about the luggage or the action taken on the complaint but no satisfactory reply was received. (Copy of the communications made via WhatsApp with Investigating Officer has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure-E).

6). It has been further alleged that when all the efforts of the complainant for resolving this issue turned futile, the Complainant had sent legal notice through counsel to the Northern Railways via Speed Post but the same was returned unserved with reason “incomplete address“. The complainant again tried to serve the legal notice to the opposite party after taking the address from the opposite party official website but again the same was returned with reason incomplete address. After long pursuance, complainant filed RTI to the Indian Northern Railway for its official address for serving upon the legal notice but the same was also disposed of without any satisfactory reply. The complainant has also filed the appeal for the aforesaid RTI but the same was also disposed of by suggesting the complainant to file another RTI with all the details like luggage theft etc. The complainant again filed RTI with all the required details as per the suggestion of the concerned department on 13.08.2021 but the same is not yet disposed off till now even after completion of the 30 days time as per rules. (copy of the RTI reply has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure-F)

7). Thereafter, the complainant visited the Northern Railway Head office and somehow arranged the official address and got issued a Legal Notice dated 24/08/2021 via Speed Post but no reply was received from the opposite party. The said Legal Notice was duly served upon the opposite party on 26/08/2021 at its Registered Office and despite the service of legal notice though Speed-Post, the opposite party has neither replied the said notice nor complied with it. (copy of legal notice sent to the Opposite party, speed-post receipts & its delivery reports have been annexed with the complaint as ‘Annexure-G’, ‘Annexure-H’, and ‘Annexure-I’ respectively).

8). The complainant has further alleged that it is evident from the above explained facts that the Opposite Party has failed to provide the services as assured and offered despite various communications which has resulted in mental & physical harassment and inconvenience to the Complainant. The attitude and response given by the Opposite Party in this matter is in violation of consumer rights and also amounts to unfair trade practices, therefore, the Complainant has filed instant complaint praying to direct the Opposite Party to pay:-

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as luggage expenses along with interest rate of 24% per annum;
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant herein, as compensation for mental torture, harassment, inconvenience and financial loss suffered by him at the hands of the Opposite Party and;
Rs.25,000/- to the complainant herein, towards the cost of litigation; and

to pass such and other further order(s) as this Commission may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Complainant as against the Opposite Party in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

9). Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP and in response, the OP has filed its reply stating that the OP is a largest transportation service provider, “Indian Railway”. Neither there is any administrative control of OP nor its staff on the train in question. The issue falls under the jurisdiction of official of Delhi Division/Northern Railway, New Delhi. Hence, Sr. DCM/Delhi of Northern Railway and Northern Railway are not a concerned party to the case and needs deletion from the array of OP. Hence, the complaint against the present OP needs to be dismissed out rightly for want of proper party as per Civil Procedure Code. The complaint is filed against Sr. DCM DRM office, NCDR Building State Entry Road, New Delhi which cannot be impleaded as OP as per the section 80 of CPC. The present complaint filed against the OP is not maintainable in the eyes of law, as there is actually no cause of action or negligence to file this complaint against impleaded OP. Further, no negligence or cause of action is rendered by the OP to the complainant as alleged in the complaint.

10). While rebutting the allegations levelled in the complaint, the OP has raised preliminary objections as under:-

i. the complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands. The complainant has suppressed the true facts as the complainant has not provided the factual status about the stated Police Complaint at Maharashtra before the Commission, Hence, only on this ground the complaint is required to be dismissed.

ii. As the services of railway, were hired for travelling and the same was duly provided. Hence there is no deficiency of services at all on the part of the OP. Therefore, the complaint needs to be rejected out rightly.

iii. The complainant is not a consumer in respect of carriage of her articles during the journey; as services had neither been hired nor entrusted to the Railway for its safe caring.

iv. As per Railway Rule 506(2) of the Indian Railway Conference Association, Coaching Tariff no. 26 (Part 1) (Vol. 1) Chapter V under the heading “Luggage” also provides that ‘‘All articles taken into the carriage are carried at the entire risk of the owners”. According to Rule 506(2) passenger himself is responsible for the safety of his/ her luggage and the Railway authorities cannot be held liable for any loss or damage. This information remains displayed in the coaches and well known. It is further submitted that “Currency and valuables are also not allowed as luggage”. This is true that some items which may require during the course of journey, may be carried Feee of cost Luggage but such luggage/items should not be valuable.

v. Services rendered free of cost does not falls under CPA”. As in the present matter neither the services of the Railway availed nor any charge has been paid to the Railway regarding the safe caretaking of the alleged luggage/item which were under personal custody of the complainant. Also as per the Rule of Railway Couching Tariff no. 24 “no liability can be fastened for the loss of the un-booked items carried in personal custody”. Hence, there is no question of deficiency and filling of case under CPA.

vi. CPA is not applicable in the cases where service by making payment were not hired/availed. It means CPA cannot be attracted for the service provided FREE OF COST. And in the present case services of railway were not hired for the item/valuables. It is mentioned by complainant in her plaint herself that the luggage was kept under the seat and the complainant remained unaware of the incident. And only in the next morning at Jalgaon, Maharashtra complainant came to know about the incident. Thus the alleged incident happened due to the negligence and carelessness of the complainant.

v. The complainant was not travelling alone but there were other passengers travelling as well in the train. All these well prove that complainant has not taken due care in journey and now complainant is shifting her negligent conduct on Railway. Neither this is a case of Deficiency in the services nor of any unfair trade practice on part of the Railway. Hence, the OP is not liable for any compensation as prayed in this complaint.

vi. As per Sec. 100 of the Railway Act, 1989, no responsibility lies on Railway Administration in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in her 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. Provisions of Sec. 100 may be read as under:-

Sec. 100 Responsibility as carrier of luggage.

“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 there for 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.”

Hence, looking to the above Rules/Act enacted by the Parliament, the complainant herself is responsible for the act and/as no evidence has been adduce to prove the negligence of OP or their staff, so the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint from Railway. No precaution was taken by the complainant for preventing luggage from being stolen and negligence is on the part of the complainant herself in the instant matter. Hence the complaint of the complainant is required to be dismissed.

vii. The allegation pertains to theft issue and this issue lies under the jurisdiction of State Government Police i.e. under the jurisdiction of the concerned state Government as per the constitution of India. As such impleaded OP is not a proper party. Hence, the case needs dismissal on this ground alone. Such issue needs due process of establishing of allegation by way of evidences and thus, falls under the jurisdiction of the concerned Criminal Courts. Railway has no jurisdiction on such issues being a transport organization. The allegation is made out just to shift the responsibility on the Railway and as such, there is no deficiency in service on part of the OP. It is denied that unreserved passengers are allowed to travel in reserved coaches. The Railway bears the responsibility of safe running of trains only. As already mentioned the Law and Order issues, falls under the jurisdiction of the State government Police.

viii. In the present case, wrong OP is impleaded by the complainant for the negligence of the complainant herself. And neither any relevant documents nor any evidence to establish the alleged allegation has been provided to Railway. There is no Deficiency in Service on the part of Railway towards the present complainant and there is no applicability of CPA. Hence, case needs dismissal out rightly.

11). The OP has also furnished parawise reply on the allegations on merits which are reproduced below:-

The averments made in the Para no.1 of the complaint are not within the knowledge of the answering OP and denied for want of information.
The averments made in the Para no.2 of the complaint are disputed. IRCTC Ltd. is a separate identity and has no functions are under the control of Sr. DCM/ Delhi OR DRM/Delhi.
Averments made in the Para no.3 of the complaint needs no reply being matter of record. However, the ticket of the train in question was not purchased by the complainant from the OP.
Averments made in the Para no.4 of the complaint are denied and disputed as contradictory in itself. No such information had been provided to the train staff on duty of the (COVID-19 Spl. Train) train in question.
The averments made in the Para no.5 of the complaint are not within the knowledge of the answering OP, hence, denied for want of information. Moreover, no details about the TTE, alleged passenger and children is provided in the present complaint. Hence, the contents are treated as disputed.
The averments made in the Para no.6 of the complaint are denied and disputed. Being the COVID-19 Spl. Train, the securities are at its high and no unauthorised passengers were allowed in the reserved coaches during the journey.
Averments made in the Para no.7 of the complaint are denied and disputed out rightly as being false, frivolous and concocted as no complaint has been made by the complainant to the staff on duty during the journey. Moreover being the COVID-19 Spl. Train the securities are at its high and no unauthorised passengers were allowed in the reserved coaches.
The averments made in the Para no.8 of the complaint are denied and disputed for the want of information. Further the alleged incident happened due to the negligent and carelessness of the complainant. As mentioned by complainant in the complaint itself that the luggage was kept under the seat and the complainant remained unaware of the incident. And only in the next morning at Jalgaon (Maharashtra) complainant came to know about the incident. This is not out of place to mention here that the complainant was not travelling alone, there were other passengers travelling as well. All this well proves that the complainant has not taken due care of her luggage during the journey and now the complainant is shifting her liability on the Railway.
For the averments made in the Para no.9 of the complaint, no reply can be made by the OP for want of information. However, the Railway bears the responsibility of safe running of trains and general safety. And the law and order issues lies with the State Govt. Railway Police Forces (GRPF). Moreover, it was admitted by the complainant herself in the complaint in the last part of the para that GRPF and TTE were in the train and attended the complainant when called for. Moreover, being a responsible and vigilant employee, they informed the Bhopal Railway Branch Office about the present complaint and called for their reply, and same will be submitted before this Commission on and when the same is provided to the OP.
For the averments made in the Para no.10 of the complaint, no reply can be made by the OP for want of information. However, the luggage was in the personal custody of the complainant and it was her own responsibility to safe guard her belongings.
For the averments made in the Para no.11 of the complaint, no reply can be made by the OP for want of information. The matter pertains to Maharashtra State Police, hence, need not to be replied by the OP as being matter of record.
For the averments made in the Para no.12 of the complaint, no comments can be made for want of information by the OP. However, the matter pertains to Maharashtra State Police, hence, need not to be replied by the OP as being matter of record.
For the averments made in the Para no.13 of the complaint, no comments can be made for want of information. The matter pertains to Maharashtra State Police, hence, need not to be replied by the OP as being matter of record.
For the averments made in the Para no.14 of the complaint, no comments can be made by the OP for want of information. the matter pertains to Maharashtra State Police, hence, need not to be replied by the OP as being matter of record.
For the averments made in the Para no.15 of the complaint, no comments can be made by the OP for want of information. However, it is submitted that being the matter pertains to Maharashtra State Police and Delhi Police, hence, need not to be replied by the OP as being matter of record.
For the averments made in the Para no.16 of the complaint, no comments can be made by the OP for want of information. Matter pertains to Maharashtra State Police and Delhi Police, hence, need not to be replied by the OP as being matter of record..
The averments made in the Para no.17 of the complaint are denied and disputed. The matter of record pertains to Maharashtra State Police and Delhi Police, and hence matter of record of the concerned departments. Moreover, OP being a wrongly impleaded party in the matter by the complainant to shift the liability.
For the averments made in the Para no.18 of the complaint, contents itself proves that the legal notice was not served due to the incomplete address and needs no reply by the OP.
For the averments made in the Para no.19 of the complaint, no reply can be made for want of information. Hence, need no reply, being matter of record.
For the averments made in the Para no.20 of the complaint, No legal notice was received by the OP office probably due to the incomplete address. Hence, needs no reply.
The averments made in the Para no.21 of the complaint are denied and disputed strongly. The allegations made in the complaint are totally false, frivolous and concocted. As the services of railway were hired by the present complainant for travelling and it was duly provided by issuing a travelling ticket. Hence, there is no deficiency of services at all on the part of the present respondent towards the present complainant. Further, Railway bears the responsibility of safe running of Trains and General safety. The law and order issues lies with the State Government Railway Police Forces (GRPF). Moreover, it was complainant’s own duty to safe guard her own belongings during the journey. As in the present matter neither the services of the Railway availed, nor has any charge been paid to the Railway regarding the safe caretaking of the alleged luggage/item and were under personal custody of the complainant. Moreover the present issue doesn’t lies in the jurisdiction of the Railway so no responsibility can be fastened on the Railway from any corner. As per Railway Rule 506(2) of the Indian Railway Conference Association, Coaching Tariff no. 26 (Part 1) (Vol. 1) Chapter V under the heading “Luggage” also provides that “All articles taken into the carriage are carried at the entire risk of the owners”. According to Rule 506(2) passenger himself is responsible for the safety of his/her luggage and the Railway authorities cannot be held liable for any loss or damage. This information remains displayed in the coaches and well known. It is further submitted that Currency and valuables are also not allowed as luggage. This is true that some items which may require during the course of journey, may be carried free of cost but such luggage/items should not be valuable. Secondly, services rendered free of cost does not falls under CPA”.

v. As per the Rule of Railway Couching Tariff no. 24, “по liability can be fastened for the loss of the un-booked items carried in personal custody”.

w. the services are provided just for boarding and de-boarding of the passengers. And, the allegations made by the complainant are no way falls under the Consumer Dispute as it falls under the concerned State Police Department. Moreover, as it is mentioned by complainant in her plaint herself that the luggage was kept under the seat and the complainant remained unaware of the incident. And only in the next morning at Jalgaon, Maharashtra complainant came to know about the incident. Thus the alleged incident happened due to the negligence and carelessness of the complainant herself. This proves well that complainant has not taken due care in journey and now complainant is shifting the liability of her negligent conduct on Railway. Neither this is any Deficiency in the services towards the present complainant nor any unfair trade practice on part of the Railway. Hence, the OP is not liable for any compensation as prayed in this complaint.

The averments made in the Para no.22 of the complaint are denied in TOTO by the OP. it was the complainant’s own responsibility to safe guards her belongings. The Railway bears the responsibility of safe running of trains only. As already mentioned the Law and Order issue falls under the jurisdiction of State government Police. Moreover, it is submitted that there is no Deficiency in Service, or violation of Consumer Rights of any kind of unfair trade practices on part of the OP. And therefore there is no applicability of CPA in the present case. Moreover the present issue doesn’t lies under the jurisdiction of Railway so no responsibility can be fastened on the Railway by any way.
The averments made in the Para no.23 of the complaint are denied in TOTO. The concerned luggage was not entrusted to the Railway nor did the services avail for the same by the complainant from the Railway for the safekeeping. The safety, law and order including the issues like theft lies under the administrative jurisdiction of State Government Police. As this issue doesn’t lies under the jurisdiction of Railway no responsibility can be fastened on the Railway. Moreover, in the instant matter, no precaution was taken by the complainant for safe caring and preventing the luggage from being stolen. The negligent conduct is on the part of the complainant herself, there is no deficiency in service on part of the Railway. Furthermore, it is denied that the unreserved passengers are allowed to travel in reserved coaches, this allegation is made out just to shift the responsibility on the Railway and as such there is no deficiency on part of the Railway.
For the averments made in the Para no.24 of the complaint, no reply is required as the contents of this para are related to pecuniary jurisdiction.
The averments made in the Para no.25 of the complaint are denied and disputed out rightly. It is mentioned by complainant in her plaint herself that she boarded the train in question from Nizamuddin Railway Station and the luggage was kept under the seat. The complainant remained unaware of the incident. And only in the next morning at Jalgaon, Maharashtra complainant came to know about the incident. Thus the alleged incident happened at Jalgaon, Maharashtra. Hence, the Consumer Commission at Delhi (Tis Hazari) has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
The averments made in the Para no.26 of the complaint needs no reply by the OP being matter of record.
The averments made in the Para no.27 of the complaint needs no reply by the OP being matter of record.
The averments made in the Para no.28 of the complaint are denied and disputed out rightly by the present OP. As stated in plaint the allegation pertains to theft issue and this issue lies under the jurisdiction of State Government Police i.e. under the jurisdiction of the concerned State Government. And the present impleaded OP is not a concerned party at all. The allegation of theft made out in this complaint falls under the jurisdiction of the concerned State Government Police. Such issues needs due process of establishing of allegation by way of evidences and thus falls under the jurisdiction of concerned Criminal Court. Railway has no jurisdiction on such issues being a transport organization. Moreover, the allegation is made out just to shift the responsibility on Railway and as such there is no deficiency in service on part of the OP. It is denied that unreserved passengers are allowed to travel in reserved coaches. The Railway bears the responsibility of safe running of trains only. As already mentioned the Law and Order issues falls under the jurisdiction of State Government Police. Hence, the present matter falls under the jurisdiction of appropriate criminal court only.
The averments made in the Para no.29 of the complaint needs no reply by the OP, being matter of record.

12). The Complainant has also filed rejoinder refuting all the averments and contentions of the opposite party raised in the reply. The complainant has furnished its rebuttal to the preliminary objections raised by the OP in its reply as under:-

The contents of preliminary objection no. 2 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that the OP is a law abiding and responsible government servant of India's largest transportation service provider, "Indian Railway". It is further vehemently denied that the neither there is any administrative control of OP or its staff on the train in question nor the issue mentioned falls under the jurisdiction of official of Delhi Division/Northern Railway, New Delhi. It is further vehemently denied that the Sr. DCM/Delhi of Northern Railway and the Northern Railway are not a concerned party to the case and needs deletion from the array of OP. It is further vehemently denied that the complaint against the present OP needs to be dismissed out rightly for want of proper party as per Civil Procedure Code. Due to poor security and service provided by the opposite party to its passengers, the luggage of the complainant got stolen and the opposite party is completely responsible for the same and to compensate the complainant.
The contents of preliminary objection no. 3 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that the complaint is filed against Sr. DCM DRM office, NCDR Building State Entry Road, New Delhi as OP has submitted that there is no official having two places. It is further vehemently denied that the Sr. DCM cannot be impleaded as OP as per the section 80 of CPC. There is no such bar or provision in the CPC that Sr. DCM cannot be impleaded as OP. Moreover, the said official is being impleaded after inquiring with the concerned officials at the office of the opposite party.
The contents of preliminary objection no. 4 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that the present complaint filed against the OP is not maintainable in the eyes of law as there is actually no cause of action or negligence to file this complaint against impleaded OP. It is further vehemently denied that no negligence or cause of action is rendered by the answering OP to the complainant as alleged in the complaint and further it is vehemently denied that on this ground also the complaint needs to be dismissed out rightly.
The contents of preliminary objection no. 5 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that the complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands. It is further vehemently denied that the complainant has suppressed the true facts as the complainant has not provided the factual status about the stated Police Complaint at Maharashtra before the Hon'ble District Consumer Commission and hence, only on this ground the complaint is required to be dismissed.
The contents of preliminary objection no. 6 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that as the services of railway were hired for travelling and the same was duly provided and hence there is no deficiency of services at all on the part of the present respondent and the complaint needs to be rejected out rightly. It is submitted that the opposite party is also responsible for the security and safety of the passengers and their belongings throughout the journey and hence, the opposite party cannot run away from its responsibility and liability towards the passengers.
The contents of preliminary objection no. 7 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that the complainant has availed railway services for journey only and same is provided. It is further vehemently denied that there is no deficiency in service and there is no cause of action to file this complaint. It is submitted that the cause of action firstly arose from the date, when the complainant booked the ticket in the train of the Northern Railway and again when the complainant boarded the train of the abovesaid opposite party and further arose when the TTE of the concerned train allowed the passenger to board the train without tickets. It further arose when the opposite party failed to perform its duty to provide safety and security to the belongings of the complainant and failed to give any kind of cooperation to the complainant. It further arose when the opposite party neither complied nor replied to the legal notice dated 25/08/2021 sent by the undersigned counsel on behalf of the complainant.
The contents of preliminary objection no. 8 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is submitted that once the passenger takes the ticket and travel by the train it is the responsibility of the railway to see that passenger reaches the destination safely with his luggage and belongings and it is the duty of the railway staff to see that the belongings of the passengers are safe. In the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay v. Union of India Ors. II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC): 2004 (3) Supreme 291, the Apex Court observed that; "Railway Administration cannot escape its Lability for negligence and deficiency in service in failing to prevent unauthorized persons assaulting passengers in railway compartment and taking away their luggage."

In case titled "G.M. Northern Railway vs Radha Ramnathan", the Hon'ble National Commission held that, "We are also of the considered view that once the passenger takes the ticket and travel by the train it is the responsibility of the railway to see that passenger reaches the destination safely with his luggage and belongings. It is the duty of the railway staff to see that the belongings of the passengers are safe."

Furthermore, the Hon'ble Commission in case titled "G.M. Northern Railway vs Radha Ramnathan", held that "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."

The contents of preliminary objection no. 9 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable in the cases where services by making payment were not hired/availed which mean CPA cannot be attracted for the service provided FREE OF COST. It is further vehemently denied that in the present case services of railway were not hired for the item/valuables. The submissions made hereinabove in para no. 8 may kindly be read as part and parcel to this para and the same is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and repetition.
the contents of preliminary objection no. 10 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and concocted and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that the luggage was kept under the seat and the complainant remained unaware of the incident and only in the next morning at Jalgaon, Maharashtra complainant came to know about the incident. It is further vehemently denied that the alleged incident happened due to the negligence and carelessness of the complainant. It is further vehemently denied that the complainant has not taken due care in journey and now complainant is shifting her negligent conduct on Railway. It is further vehemently denied that neither this is a case of Deficiency in the services nor of any unfair trade practice on part of the Railway. It is further specifically and vehemently denied that the OP is not liable for any compensation as prayed in this complaint. It is submitted that after boarding the train, when the complainant was arranging her luggage she found that there was no loops for chains due to which complainant left her luggage just before her seat for her safety. It is further submitted that due to the lack of facilities pertaining to security of baggage and other belongings, the luggage of the complainant got stolen. Furthermore, as per the submissions made by the opposite party, the opposite party wants all the passengers to remain awake till whole day and night during the journey so that their belongings do not get stolen. Such irresponsible statement from the opposite party is highly obnoxious and shows that the opposite party wants to escape from its responsibility and liability.
The contents of preliminary objection no. 11 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that as per Sec. 100 of the Railway Act, 1989, no responsibility lies on Railway Administration in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in her 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 further specifically and vehemently denied that looking to the above Rules/Act enacted by the Parliament, the complainant herself is responsible for the act and/as no evidence has been adduced to prove the negligence of OP or their staff, so the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint from Railway. It is further vehemently denied that no precaution was taken by the complainant for preventing luggage from being stolen and negligence is on the part of the complainant herself in the instant matter and hence, the complaint of the complainant is required to be dismissed.
The contents of preliminary objection no. 12 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that the allegation pertains to theft issue, and this issue lies under the jurisdiction of State Government Police as per the constitution of India. It is further vehemently denied that as such impleaded OP is not a proper party and the case needs dismissal on this ground alone. It is submitted that for criminal proceedings, the FIR has already been lodged with the concerned Police Station but the present matter is filed with the Commission for compensation for deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party.
The contents of preliminary objection no. 13 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that the allegation of theft made out in this complaint falls under the jurisdiction of the concerned State Government Police and such issue needs due process of establishing of allegation by way of evidences and thus falls under the jurisdiction of the concerned Criminal Courts and Railway has no jurisdiction on such issues being a transport organization.
The contents of preliminary objection no. 14 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that the allegation is made out just to shift the responsibility on the Railway and as such there is no deficiency in service on part of the OP and the Railway bears the responsibility of safe running of trains only. The submissions made hereinabove in para no. 8, 10 & 12 may kindly be read as part and parcel to this para and the same are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and repetition.
The contents of preliminary objection no. 15 of the reply, as stated, are wrong, false and hence denied in totality. It is specifically denied that in the present case, wrong OP is impleaded by the complainant for the negligence of the complainant herself. It is further vehemently denied that neither any relevant documents nor any evidence to establish the alleged allegation provided to Railway. It is further vehemently denied that there is no Deficiency in Service on the part of Railway towards the present complainant and there is no applicability of CPA and hence, case needs dismissal out rightly. It is submitted that since 20/01/2021, complainant is making follow-ups with the opposite party and concerned police officials regarding the theft of luggage of complainant but nothing came of. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party has failed to provide the services as assured and offered despite various communications, which has resulted in lot of mental & physical harassment and inconvenience to the complainant.

13). The complainant has also countered the parawise reply on merits furnished by the OP, stating that:-

i. the contents of the para no. 16 of Reply are matter of record, however, the contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

ii. the contents of the para no. 17 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

iii. the contents of the para no. 18 of Reply are not disputed being matter of record, however, in reply thereto the contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. It is specifically denied that the ticket of the train in question was not purchased by the complainant from the present impleaded OP. The complainant had purchased a train ticket having PNR no. 2543051481, coach S5, Seat no. 17 under ladies quota from the opposite party and this is why the opposite party (i.e. Northern Railway) had allowed the complainant to travel through the said train.

iv. the contents of the para no. 19 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

v. the contents of the para no. 20 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding paras of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. It is submitted that it is upto the opposite party to provide the list of the passengers to this Court and expecting from complainant to have the details of every passenger is absolutely unfair and beyond inconceivable.

vi. the contents of the para no. 21 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding paras of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. It is specifically denied that being the COVID-19 Spl. Train the securities are at its high and no unauthorised passengers were allowed in the reserved coaches during the journey. If the securities were at its high then the luggage of the complainant would not have been stolen and complainant would not have been compelled to approach the concerned authorities and this Commission for the reliefs. Hence, it raises questions on the contentions as well as high security of the opposite party as claimed.

vii. the contents of the para no. 22 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding paras of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. It is specifically denied that no complaint has been made by the complainant to the staff on duty during the journey. It is further vehemently denied that being the COVID-19 Spl. Train the securities are at its high and no unauthorised passengers were allowed in the reserved coaches. The said issue was resolved because of the intervention of the fellow passengers and as far as the Helpline numbers of the railways are concerned, they often remain not reachable. As far as the high security of train is concerned, the submissions made hereinabove for the para no. 21 may kindly be read as part and parcel to this para and the same is not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and repetition.

viii. the contents of the para no. 23 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. It is specifically denied that the alleged incident happened due to the negligent and carelessness of the complainant. It is further vehemently denied that the luggage was kept under the seat by the complainant and the complainant remained unaware of the incident and only in the next morning at Jalgaon (Maharashtra) complainant came to know about the incident. It is further vehemently denied that the complainant has not taken due care of her luggage during the journey and now the complainant is shifting her liability on the Railway. It is submitted that after boarding the train, when the complainant was arranging her luggage she found that there was no loops for chains due to which complainant left her luggage just before her seat for her safety. It is further submitted that due to the lack of facilities pertaining to security of baggage and other belongings, the luggage of the complainant got stolen. Furthermore, as per the submissions made by the opposite party, the opposite party wants all the passengers to remain awake till whole day and night during the journey so that their belongings do not get stolen. Such irresponsible statement from the opposite party is highly obnoxious and shows that the opposite party wants to escape from its responsibility and liability.

ix. the contents of the para no. 24 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. It is specifically denied that the Railway bears the responsibility of safe running of trains and general safety and the law and order issues lies with the State Govt. Railway Police Forces (GRPF). It is further vehemently denied that GRPF and TTE were in the train and attended the complainant when called for and being a responsible and vigilant employee, the OP informed the Bhopal Railway Branch Office about the present complaint and called for their reply and same will be submitted before this Commission on and when the same is provided to the OP. it seems that the opposite party did not read this present para of the complaint carefully as GRPF were not present in the train but when the complainant pulled the chain of the train then only the RPF personnel came there and she informed them about the theft of her luggage. Despite that, the RPF personnel asked Complainant to search the luggage in the train only. Meanwhile, Complainant approached to the TTE and informed him about the entire incident and requested him to provide the details of the male passenger who were travelling without ticket on ladies seats but she came to know that the TTE was changed and at the end, Complainant informed her family about the aforesaid incident. Hence, the complainant did not get all the required assistance and support from the concerned Railway authorities or personnel.

x. the contents of the para no. 25 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. It is specifically denied that the luggage was in the personal custody of the complainant and it was her own responsibility to safeguard her belongings. It is submitted that throughout the journey, safety and the security of the passengers as well as there are the responsibility of the opposite party and it cannot run away from its responsibility.

xi. the contents of the para no. 26 of Reply are being matter of record and not disputed by the opposite party however, in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

xii. the contents of the para no. 27 of Reply are being matter of record and not disputed by the opposite party however, in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

xiii. The contents of the para no. 28 of Reply are being matter of record and not disputed by the opposite party however, in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

xiv. The contents of the para no. 29 of Reply are being matter of record and not disputed by the opposite party however, in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

xv. The contents of the para no. 30 of Reply are being matter of record and not disputed by the opposite party however, in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

xvi. The contents of the para no. 31 of Reply are being matter of record and not disputed by the opposite party however, in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

xvii. The contents of the para no. 32 of Reply are being matter of record and not disputed by the opposite party however, it is specifically and vehemently denied that Opposite Party wrongly impleaded party in the matter by the complainant to shift the liability. In reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

xviii. The contents of the para no. 33 of Reply are matter of record however, in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

xix. The contents of the para no. 34 of Reply are being matter of record and not disputed by the opposite party however, in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

xx. the contents of the para no. 35 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. It is specifically denied that that no legal notice was received by the OP's office probably due to the incomplete address. It is submitted that the Legal Notice dated 25/08/2021 was sent through the Speed-Post to the opposite party and it was duly served upon the opposite party on 26/08/2021 at its Registered Office but despite the service of the said legal notice, the opposite party neither replied the said notice nor complied with it.

xxi. the contents of the para no. 36 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. The submissions made hereinabove may kindly be read as reply and part & parcel to this para.

xxii. the contents of the para no. 37 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. It is specifically denied that it was the complainant's own responsibility to safeguard her belongings and the Railway bears the responsibility of safe running of trains only. It is further vehemently denied that there is no Deficiency in service or violation of Consumer Rights of any kind of unfair trade practices on part of the OP and therefore there is no applicability of CPA in the present case. It is further vehemently denied that the present issue doesn't lies under the jurisdiction of Railway so no responsibility can be fastened on the Railway by any way. The submissions made hereinabove under 'reply to preliminary objections' in para no. 8, 10 & 12 may kindly be read as part and parcel to this para as reply.

xxiii. the contents of the para no. 38 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding paras of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. It is specifically denied that the concerned luggage was not entrusted to the Railway, nor the services availed for the same by the complainant from the Railway for the safekeeping. It is further vehemently denied that no responsibility can be fastened on the Railway and in the instant matter no precaution was taken by the complainant for safe caring and preventing the luggage from being stolen. It is further vehemently denied that the negligent conduct is on the part of the complainant herself and there is no deficiency in service on part of the Railway. The submissions made hereinabove under 'reply to preliminary objections' in para no. 8, 10 & 12 may kindly be read as part and parcel to this para as reply.

xxiv. The contents of the para no. 39 of Reply are being matter of record and not disputed by the opposite party, however, in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

xxv. the contents of the para no. 40 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding paras of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. It is specifically denied that the luggage was kept under the seat and the complainant remained unaware of the incident and only in the next morning at Jalgaon, Maharashtra complainant came to know about the incident. It is further vehemently denied that the alleged incident happened at Jalgaon, Maharashtra and hence, the Consumer Commission at Delhi (Tis Hazari) has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is submitted that the ticket of said train was purchased from Delhi and the opposite party has not disputed the place of purchase of the said ticket. Hence, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

In case titled "U.S. Awasthy v. Gulf Air & Anr. (FA No. 184 of 2001) decided on 30.09.2003, the National Commission has held that, "it is not disputed that since the tickets were purchased in Delhi, whereof part of cause of action arose in Delhi, the court in Delhi will have competent jurisdiction."

In case titled "Northern Railways v. Balbir Singh (FA No. 311/2014) decided on 25.09.2014, the State Commission, Chandigarh held that, "since the tickets were purchased in Chandigarh and, as such, a part of cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the District Forum at Chandigarh has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint."

Thus, it is clear that in the present case a part of cause of action arose in Delhi, where the tickets were purchased and hence, this Hon'ble Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

xxvi. The contents of the para no. 41 of Reply are being matter of record and not disputed by the opposite party however, in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

xxvii. The contents of the para no. 42 of Reply are being matter of record and not disputed by the opposite party however, in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

xxviii. the contents of the para no.43 of Reply are wrong and false and hence, denied and in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct. It is specifically denied that the allegation pertains to theft issue and this issue lies under the jurisdiction of State Government Police i.e. under the jurisdiction of the concerned State Government and the present impleaded OP is not a concerned party at all. It is further vehemently denied that railway has no jurisdiction on such issues being a transport organization and the allegation is made out just to shift the responsibility on Railway and as such there is no deficiency in service on part of the OP. It is further vehemently denied that the Railway bears the responsibility of safe running of trains only hence, the present matter falls under the jurisdiction of appropriate criminal court only.

xxix. the contents of the para no.44 of Reply are being matter of record and not disputed by the opposite party however, in reply thereto contents of corresponding para of the complaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as correct.

14). The parties have filed evidences by way of affidavit, written arguments and has also led oral arguments. During the arguments, the Complainant has filed copies of following judgments:-

"Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay v. Union of India Ors., II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC): 2004 (3) Supreme 291
”G.M. Northern Railway VS Radha Ramnathan" State Consumer Commission
"Radha Ramnathan Vs. G.M. Northern Railway", Supreme Court
"Northern Railways v. Balbir Singh" (FA No. 311/2014) decided on 25.09.2014, State Commission Chandigarh

15). The OP has also referred following judgments during the arguments:-

The Hon’ble National Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi in the Revision Petition No. 3265/ 2014 titled as Dinesh Aggarwal Vs. Indian Railway Dated 03/09/2015.
The Hon’ble National Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi in the Revision Petition No. 4449/2010 titled as Bimiladevi Radheshyam Natani Vs. Station Manager, Manmad Railway Station and Ors. Dated 16/07/2012.
SONIC SURGICAL CASE CA no.1560 of 2004 decided on dated 20/10/2009.
Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Railway (RP/18/2008) decided by the Hon'ble NCDRC and Hon'ble Supreme court of India on 17/5/12.
VIJAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA & Anr.,SLP no.34738- 34739 of 2002 decided on dated 2/7/2013.
Chief Station Manager Raigarh and other Vs Mamta Aggarwal case number 590/2015 by Hon'ble national commission (NCDRC), New Delhi decided on dated 12/9/17

But OP has filed copies only for cases mentioned at Sr. No.1 & 2 above and these copies are also not properly legible. The OP has mentioned the above cases in the written arguments but failed to highlight as to how these judgments are similar to facts of this complaint. The OP instead of helping the commission to find out relevance of these judgment, has completely left it to the commission to find relevance. On the other hand, the complainant has filed copies of judgments referred in para 14 above.

16). Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by both the parties and it has been observed that the OP has mainly contested its case on the following points:-

The railway is not responsible for the luggage carried in the personal custody and for un-booked items also. The complainant neither booked nor declared any article before Railways. No amount was paid to Railway for said luggage/articles/contents in question.
As per Railway Rule 506(2) of the Indian Railway Conference Association, Coaching Tariff no. 26 (Part 1) (Vol. 1) Chapter V under the heading “Luggage” also provides that ‘‘All articles taken into the carriage are carried at the entire risk of the owners”.
As per Sec. 100 of Indian Railway Act, Railway is not liable for un-booked luggage.
The matter pertains to Maharashtra State Police.
The Station Master of Old Delhi Railway Station or the Old Delhi Railway Station cannot be made the party to the present complaint case as he is not a concerned party to the case and no allegation has been made against the OP.
This commission has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

17). We have examined the objections of the OP on the basis of its pleadings & counter reply of the complainant and found that the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Revision Petition No.1099 of 2020 passed on 25-07-2023 in the matter of Indian Railways & 2 Ors Versus Uma Aggarwal is relevant in this case and the relevant observations/findings of Hon’ble NCDRC have been reproduced below:-

“12. Relying on above, the respondent contended that the railway personnel who were supposed to be in the coach have violated several of their duties which have been prescribed by the Railway Board by not closing the gates at night, not being present in the coach, allowing intruders in the coach, not aiding the respondent in filing the FIR among others. Hence, as they have failed in their duty, they were negligent in providing the requisite service to their consumers and the respondent herein. Thus, the Railways is liable for deficiency of service on account of negligence of its employees.

13. In Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwalla ( supra ), this Commission held that “TTE of coach was negligent in performance of his duties by not keeping the doors of the coach latched when the train was on the move and by not keeping the vestibules doors of coach locked from 10 p.m. to 6 p.m.” Relying on this case, respondent contends that present case also warrants of the same circumstances where the doors of the coach were left open. Hence, it was a negligent act on the part of the TTE and the revisionists are liable to pay the compensation. In General Manager, South Central Railways Vs. Jagannath Mohan Shinde ( supra ), this Commission held that “If any unauthorized person is permitted to be present on the reserved compartment of a train, then Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act would not be of any help to the Railways in absolving them from any liability since anyways the Railways is responsible as a carrier of luggage if it is proved that there was negligence on its part.” Relying on this judgment, the respondent argued that the contention of the revisionists that the ld. Consumer Commissions do not have jurisdiction in matters covered Section 100 of the Act, stands invalidated. In G.M. South Central Railway Vs. R.V. Kumar 2005 SCC Online NCDRC222, this Commission observed that “A passenger travelling by a train is entitled to carry certain baggage or luggage within permissible limits of weights, free of cost. There is no question of entrusting such baggage / luggage to the Railways and getting a receipt thereof. If a loss take place of such a luggage, Railways can be held responsible provided that there is negligence on the part of the Railways or any of its servants, provided, of course, that the passenger himself has taken responsible care of his personal baggage as expected of a prudent person.” The respondent argued that in the present case, the respondent has taken more than reasonable care by keeping the purse beneath her pillow while sleeping. Moreover she tried her best to stop the snatching of her belongings and despite being a female bravely tried to catch hold of the intruder herself but was stopped by person who was supposedly railway staff as appeared from his uniform/appearance. Railway officials by keeping the doors of the coach open and by allowing an unauthorized person to enter the coach have failed to perform their duty which point towards their negligence thus causing a deficiency in service. In Station Master, Indian Railways V s. Sunil Kumar (supra), this Commission observed that “We further note that the complainant was travelling with ladies (mother and wife) and children on reserved berths in a reserved coach after paying the fares and purchasing the tickets. He was right in agitating that the railways was responsible for safety and security of person and hand-held baggage, including from unknown persons who gained entry unauthorizedly and committed theft ( the railways was undoubtedly responsible for theft of hand-held baggage from running train). Respondent argued that in the present case, theft occurred under similar circumstances as the respondent’s belongings were stolen by unauthorized persons in a reserved coach, therefore, the Railways are liable to pay compensation to the respondents.

14. Petitioner argued that jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is barred because matters pertaining to the theft is specifically barred by Section 97 and 100 of the Railways Act, extract of which is reproduced below:

“Section 97 : Goods carried at owner’s risk rate – Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 93, a railway administration shall not be responsible for any loss, destruction, damages, deterioration or non-delivery in transit, of any consignment carried at owner’s risk rate, from whatever cause arising except upon proof, that such loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery was due to negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of it servants.”

Section 100. Responsibility as carrier of luggage.—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 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 servant.”

A bare perusal of above provisions show that under section 100, if it is proved that loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to negligence or misconduct on the part of railways or on the part of any of its servant, the railways administration will be held responsible. In this case both the fora below have given concurrent findings regarding negligence / deficiency of service on the part of petitioner railways / its officials. Hence, agreeing with the contentions of the respondent, we do not find any infirmity or illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld.

15. As regards contention of the Petitioner regarding territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, states as follows:

“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs].

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain, or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

As Railways have a Pan India presence, and the boarding point / starting point of journey by the respondent was Bikaner, District Forum Bikaner was right in entertaining the Consumer Complaint.

16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised and case laws by the learned Counsel for the Parties, we find no merit in the Revision Petition, hence the same is dismissed.”

18). The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Imperia Structures Ltd Vs Anil Patni and Anr (2020)10 SCC 783 is also relevant wherein it has been held that "Remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the remedies under special statutes”. This finding also counters the OP’s contention that the matter of theft is to be investigated as per the provisions of CPC.

19). The judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in RP NO. 1765 OF 2017 in the matter

of General Manager, Northern Railway & Anr versus Radha Ramnathan w/o. Lt.

Sh. S. Ramnathan decided on 04 Feb 2019 is also relevant in this matter wherein

the commission had dismissed the appeal of railways with the following

observations:-

“6. This order was impugned by the opposite party by way of appeal. The appeal was dismissed and order of District Forum was confirmed. In the appeal, similar contentions were raised that railways are not responsible for the safety of the luggage which the passengers carry with them and that Section 100 of the Railways Act casts a duty upon the railways only for the safety of the luggage which the passenger had booked. The State Commission has dealt with the arguments and had held as under:

“The respondent/OP has relied upon the provisions of Section 100 of the aforesaid Act under which the railway cannot be held liable to compensation. Section 100 of the Railway Act provides as under:

“A Railway Administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless 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 negligence or misconduct on its part of on the part of any its servants.”

9. The aforesaid section is divided into two parts. One part deals with luggage booked by the passengers and other part deals with luggage which is carried by the passengers in his charge.

10. The first part of Section 100 provides that the railway administration shall not be responsible for loss, etc. of any luggage unless the railway servant has booked the luggage and given receipt thereof. The second part reads that in the case of luggage which is carried by passenger in his charge railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss unless it is also proved that the loss is due to the negligence of the railway staff. In this particular case the finding of the lower Fora are that there has been negligence on the part of Railway or on the part of its servants. The finding are based on material on record.

11. A passenger travelling by a train is entitled to carry certain baggage or luggage within permissible limits of weight, free of cost. There is no question of entrusting such baggage/luggage to the Railways and getting a receipt thereof. If a loss takes place of such a luggage, Railways can be held responsible provided that there is negligence on the part of Railways or any of its servants, provided, of course, that the passenger himself has taken reasonable care of his personal baggage as expected of prudent person.

12. Further, in view of decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sumatidevi M.Dhanwatay v. Union of India Ors., II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC) : 2004 (3) Supreme 291, the Apex Court observed that;

“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.”

13. We are also of the considered view that once the passenger takes the ticket and travel by the train it is the responsibility of the railway to see that passenger reaches the destination safely with his luggage and belongings. It is the duty of the railway staff to see that the belongings of the passengers are safe.

14. Further contention of the appellant/OP is that the complainant lodged a complaint with the railway attendant nor with the TT of the coach or RPF or station master at Bhopal. It is evident from the record that the respondent/complainant lodged her complaint to the immediate available person, the railway attendant. Under these circumstances, it was the attendant to guide the senior citizen properly or call upon that or RPF and informed about the incident.

15. Further it is also evident from the record that the baggage of respondent/complainant had been stolen on reaching Bhopal station at around 1 A.M. And immediately she complaint about the missing baggage to the ticket examiner as well as to the station master at the Bhopal railway station. Therefore, the appellant/cannot wriggle out from his responsibility stating that complainant had not lodged any complaint with TT of the coach or RPF or to the station master at Bhopal. Another contention of the appellant is that the alleged suitcase of the respondent/complainant was lost at Bhopal and the train was manned by staff of Jhansi division and the maintenance of the train is under Southern Railway, Chennai.”

7. The order of the State Commission is impugned before me. The counsel has not pressed the contentions that order of the State Commission was without territorial jurisdiction. He argues that as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, liability of the Railway to compensate the loss of luggage arises when the luggage has been booked by the passenger and he has receipt. He has argued that admittedly in this case the luggage which the complainant was carrying was not booked and, therefore, they have no liability to compensate her for the loss of her luggage.

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. Section 100 of the Railways Act reads as under:

10. Bare reading of this provision shows that it has two parts. First part relates to the liability of Railways where the luggage is booked against receipt and other part starts after the expression “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 negligence or misconduct on its part of on the part of any its servants.”. It is apparent that Railway is responsible for the loss or destruction of the luggage which is carried by the passenger and their liability arises only when passenger proves that such loss or damage to her luggage has occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the servants of the railways. It is a fact that before the District Forum, petitioner only filed its written version and they did not produce any evidence. The respondent by way of her un-contradicted testimony has proved the fact that she was carrying the suitcase which contain articles of the value of Rs.1,34,400/- and that unauthorised passengers entered into the coach and neither the ticket checker nor the Railway Protection Force took any steps to remove them from the coach despite her raising objection to them and the coach attendant at about 10.30 p.m. This fact conclusively proves the misconduct / negligence on the part of the railway staff and hence even under section 100 of the Railways Act, the petitioner is liable to compensate. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the findings of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 590 of 2015 titled Chief Station Manager, South East Central Railway and Ors. Vs. Mamta Agrawal wherein it has been held as under :

“The main ground taken by the Railways is that under Section 100 of the Railway 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 gave the receipt and in that case also, it should be proved that such loss/damage, etc., was due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the servants of the Railway Administration. In the present case, no such booking was made with the Railways and hence, the provisions of Section 100 of the Railways Act, etc., are applicable in the matter. In this context, this Commission has expressed its view on the provision of Section 100 of Railway Act in Revision Petition No.4098 of 2014, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rama Shanker Misra & Anr., decided on 07-08-2015. In Union of India Vs. Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave & Anr., I(2003) CPJ 72 (NC); Southern Eastern Railway Vs. Ku. Bharati Arora, I(2004) CPJ 114 (NC); Union of India & Anr. Vs. Anjana Singh Chauhan, IV (2014) CPJ 198 (NC). Therefore, in our view in the present case there was no negligence attributable to any specific employee.”

11. Reliance is also placed in Revision Petition No.3265 of 2014 titled Dinesh Agrawal Vs. Indian Railway and Others, wherein it has been held as under:

“The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though no unauthorized person was entitled to enter the compartment in which the complainant and his wife were travelling, the railway officials permitted the such persons to enter the coach and it was on account of the such unauthorized entry that the theft could be possible. We however find that there is no evidence of any unauthorized person having actually entered the coach in which the complainant and his wife were travelling. This is complainant’s own case that they were sleeping at the time of theft took place. Therefore, they possibly cannot have personal knowledge about the alleged presence of some unauthorized persons in the coach. Hence, we are satisfied that the alleged presence of unauthorized persons in the reserved compartment could not be established. The possibility of a fellow passenger, travelling on a reserved ticket having committed the theft and got down at a station, when the complainant was asleep cannot be ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that TTE did not render requisite cooperation to the complainant after the theft was reported to him. The plea taken in the reply filed by the OPs is that the TTE had rendered all possible help to the complainant as soon as he was informed the alleged theft. There is no independent evidence of non-cooperation on the part of the TTE. In any case, the alleged theft cannot be attributed to the said non-cooperation on the part of the TTE since it had already been taken before the matter was reported to him.”

12. The findings in the cases referred above are based on the facts proved in those cases. The law is applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and the law does not work in isolation. In these cases findings are based on the facts and circumstances of those cases and findings do not act as a law. Moreover, in the case of Sumitha Devi M Dhanwatay Vs. union of India & Ors., Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

This observation of the National Commission also supports the position that there has been negligence on the part of the Railway administration. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Railway administration is not liable for the loss suffered by the appellant, cannot be accepted in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of P. A. Narayanan v. Union of India and Ors., [1998] 3 SCC 67. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads thus;

"Mr. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the Railway administration, does not dispute that under the new Act, there is statutory liability on the Railways but submits that the 1989 Act does not have any retrospective operation. We do not wish to go into that question in this case and leave that issue open. We are resting our case on the breach of common law duty of reasonable care, which lies upon all carriers including the Railways. The standard of care is high and strict. 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. More than 17 years have already gone by since the occurrence and, therefore, it appears appropriate to us to give a quietus to this litigation now.

This apart, under Section 124Aof the Railways Act, 1989, the Railway Administration cannot escape the liability having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the incident that had taken place.

13. It is settled proposition of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, that in exercise of jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Commission is only required to see if there is jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice has been carried out. This Commission cannot reassess and reappricate the evidences to reach to any other conclusion on the fact that there was negligence on the part of the staff of the petitioner while dealing with the complaint of the respondent of unauthorized persons entering into the coach wherein she had reserved her seat. The respondent / complainant has duly proved the fact of negligence on the part of the petitioner. It cannot be said that findings of the State Commission in the impugned order is contrary to Section 100 of the Railways Act.

20) Further, the following observations dated 13-01-2023 of the Hon’ble DSCDRC in FA-302/2018 in the matter of Divisional Railway Manager Vs. Sanjeev Goyal are also relevant in this matter:-

“18. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRS, 1 (2004) CLT 20 (SC) and in Trans Mediterranean Airways vs. Universal Exports, IV 2011 CPJ 13(SC) has observed as under:-

“having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers, the better provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section '3' seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts, unless there is clear bar.”

19. Further, in State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-op. Society, I (2003) CPJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

“by reasons of the provisions of Section '3' of the Act, it is evident that remedies provided thereunder are not in derogation of those provided under other laws. The said Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts or other statutory authorities.”

20. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is also reproduced here for ready reference: -

“Act not in derogation of any other law:- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

21. Thus, after going through the judgments referred above, it become crystal clear that Consumer Fora do have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the consumers as the provisions contained in section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is not barred to entertain the complaints filed by the consumers for compensation against the Railway Authorities.”

21). The above referred judgments address most of the objections and rebuttal submitted by the OP in reply to the allegations levelled by the complainant. However, on examining the case on merit also, it has been found that the OP has filed a letter dated 05.01.2022 along with the evidence as Annexure 1/1, issued by Sh. Naveen Vyas, Chief Ticket Examiner, Jhansi stating that on 14.01.2021 S-2 Coach was not added in the train and the passengers of that coach were sitting here and there at every station, who were adjusted after checking. After the railway station Jhansi, the staff of Bhopal Division was assigned in the train and therefore, further report on the enquiry of the incident be sent to Bhopal Division. This fact corroborates the allegations of entry of passengers unauthorisedly, without any reservation in the Complainant’s coach. The scanned copy of the letter dated 05.01.2022 is placed below for ready reference:-

22). The above letter clearly proves that the Railway authorities were aware about this situation but did not make any arrangements to prevent expected chaos which resulted discomfort and loss of baggage to the passenger. The Hon’ble NCDRC in RP NO. 1140 of 2016 in the matter of General Manager, South Western Railway & Anr versus M.G. KANTIKAR & Anr decided on 11 Mar 2021, has discussed the following duties of TTE of the coaches of trains which has apparently not been discharged by the TTE in this case:-

22. XXXXX

“3. He is to ensure that doors of the coaches are kept latched during run of train and open them as and when required by passengers, particularly for authorized passengers’ entry/exit during night time.

4. He is to keep the doors of the vestibules locked during 22.00 hrs. to 6.00 hrs. to prevent unauthorized entry.

5. He is to remain vigilant particularly during night time and prevent entry of unauthorized persons.

6. He is to arrange for alerting enroute passengers well in time to enable them to detrain comfortably at night time at their destination.

23). The documents filed by the complainant with the complaint are sufficient to conclude that the complainant has made all efforts to inform the Railway staff available on board, about the chaos created by the unauthorised entrants in the compartment and also about the loss of her luggage, fulfilling her obligations as a responsible passenger but the railway staff failed take any action to ensure the safety of passenger and their luggage during transit. The photographs filed by the complainant showing condition of the seat in the train, also reveals the pathetic condition of compartment and also confirms the fact that no metal rings or loops were available under the seat to enable the passenger to fasten the luggage with it.

24). Besides, the OP has rebutted the allegations simply stating that (i) denied being matter of record or for want of information/record and (ii) Pertains to Maharashtra state police etc. etc., without filing any document to substantiate the contents of rebuttal. The OP’s failure to provide any concrete rebuttal without any evidence is considered as deemed acceptance of the allegations. On the other hand, the complainant has very well refuted the reply of OP by way of rejoinder. Further, the rebuttal/arguments advanced by the OP is untenable in this case, particularly in light of the fact that the complainant being a female passenger, who was travelling alone, was entitled to additional safety considerations considering the vulnerability of female passengers while traveling but the security measures in place during the journey, were evidently insufficient and the authorities failed to prevent entry of the unauthorized passengers in the coach which resulted the theft of the complainant’s luggage. The OP/railway department’s failure to take immediate corrective measures after the theft and also to investigate the theft despite being informed, reflects a lack of seriousness in ensuring the safety of passengers, especially women, which goes against the principles of public service and constitutes a clear deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which states that "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes—(i) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and (ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer. We also feel that the deficiency in service on the part of OP has caused mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant for which the OP is liable to pay compensation.

25). The complainant has prayed for award of Rs.50000/- with 24% interest per annum for stolen luggage but while lodging the complaint with Railway Police on 15-01-2021, the value of stolen luggage has been disclosed as Rs.23500/- as per complaint form filed with the complaint as Annexure-C. Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP to pay to the complainant:-

i. Rs.23500/-(Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred only) for stolen luggage, within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 18-10-2021 (date of filing of complaint before this commission) till the date of the payment;

ii. Rs.100000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for the mental pain, agony and harassment caused;

iii. Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as Litigation expenses.

26). It is clarified that if the above said amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum on the entire awarded amount from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

27). We also feel that the Indian Railways Act, contains certain weird and ambiguous provisions that do not adequately address the current needs and security risks of passengers and their luggage. These provisions of Act must be reviewed in the context of modern-day realities, which demand a higher standard of service from public entities like the Indian Railways. The observations of Hon’ble National consumer Commission and the Supreme Court its judgments may be taken into consideration while reviewing these provisions. The Hon’ble Supreme court in SLP (C) NO. 13288 OF 2021 in the matter of NORTHERN WESTERN RAILWAY & ANR. VERSUS SANJAY SHUKLA, has observed that “these are the days of competition and accountability. If the public transportation has to survive and compete with private players, they have to improve the system and their working culture.Citizen/passenger cannot be at the mercy of the authorities/administration. Somebody has to accept the responsibility.” Therefore, the Indian Railways is advised to review its security protocols, particularly those concerning female passengers, and take concrete steps to ensure the safety of passengers' luggage on trains.

28) The complaint is disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed off.

29) Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Copy of this order be also sent to the Chairman, Railway Board. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

Member President

DCDRC-1 (North) DCDRC-1 (North)

Delhi

North

CC/172/2021

SHRUTI GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

NORTHERN RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP KUMAR

24 Sep 2024

ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

Experties

Phone Number

7982270319