DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.502/2008
Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma
S/o Sh. Kailash Sharma
R/o F-120, Street No.82
Mahavir Enclave Part III
New Delhi-110059 ….Complainant
Versus
Central Manager
Northern Railway
Head Quarter, Baroda House,
New Delhi ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 14.08.08 Date of Order : 06 .08.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he had booked tickets on 23.07.08 for train No.2557 Sapt Kranti Express berth No.17 and 20 in coach No.S-11. At around 22:30 p.m. when they reached at Lucknow station two GRPF staff who were not in uniform came in the coach and started checking the luggage of the passengers and misbehaving with the passengers and when the Complainant protested against it they started abusing him and beat him. At that time, TT was also present but he did not stop them. When the GRPF staff left he found that his wife’s purse containing some cash, jewellery, mobile phone, ATM card and credit card of value of Rs.18,000/- was missing. He searched all around but could not find anything. No railway official including TT Arvind Kumar paid any heed to his complaint. After reaching to New Delhi Railway Station, he lodged complaint with GRPF, New Delhi. He also registered FIR bearing No.084 dated 24.07.08 U/s 379 IPC with P.S. New Delhi Railway Station. He and his wife suffered so much mental harassment and financial loss due to the negligence on the part of the staff of OP. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complaint has been filed with the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards financial, mental and physical harassment suffered by the Complainant due to the illegal acts on the part of the officials of the OP.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the complaint is mainly against the State Railway Police, Lucknow which is under police superintendent (Railway), Lucknow. The State Govt. deputes these railway police employees to maintain law and order in the State. The train is manned by the staff of Eastern Central Railway and as such GM East Central Railway Hazipur ought to have been made as a necessary party as the OP is not liable for any deficiency in service, if any. It is stated that the matter was referred to State Railway Police, Lucknow and the report received from Superintendent of Police (Railways), Pandariba, Lucknow which is attached as Annexure-1. It is further stated that dispute does not come within the purview of section 100 Railway Act, 1989 because the goods were personal belongings of Complainant and whose security OP did not owe any responsibility. It is further stated that for the said reasons complaint does not come under section 2 (d) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. A. M. Tripathi, Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that Complainant alongwith his wife had booked ticket on 23.07.08 for train No.2557 Sapt Kranti Express berth No.17 and 20 in coach No.S-11 from Bettiah to New Delhi. When the train reached at the Lucknow Station two GRPF personnel came inside the compartment and check the baggages of the passengers including the Complainant and he found that his wife’s purse containing some cash, jewellery, mobile phone, ATM card and credit card of Rs.18,000/- was missing. He had informed the T.T. who was present in the compartment. He pulled the chain twice but the matter was not resolved. On reaching New Delhi Railway Station he lodged a complaint with GRPF New Delhi (we marked the document as annexure-A for the purpose of identification).
In view of the above, it transpires that the articles were missing from the Complainant’s wife purse and there was no need to get it booked with the Railway department as the purse to carry with the person only. The OP placed reliance on section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989 which reads as under:-
“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 servants.”
We are unable to locate substance in these arguments. The Complainant has specifically stated that he immediately made a complaint to the T.T. but no action was taken. No affidavit of the concerned T.T. has been filed by the OP. Under the circumstance, a doubt creeps in whether people like T.T. works in cahoots with those culprits working as GRPF personnel. It is also difficult to fathom the role played by the Arvind Kumar. Complainant had to wait upto Delhi. Nobody came to his rescue. It is clear that in the present case the Railway Dept. was terribly remiss in discharge of its duty. The complaint made to the T.T. was just like talking to a brickwall. It is the duty of the State to take care of the passengers without any lame excuse. State means state police, GRPF and Railway. They have to work in coordination. It was a New Delhi bound train Railway have their Head Quarters in Delhi. Therefore, this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint without asking the Complainant to implead East Central Railway, Hazipur as OP. It is clearly proved that the incident had taken place due to the misconduct on the part of TT Arvind Kumar and two unknown GRPF personnel. Therefore, claim is maintainable. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in lumpsum to the Complainant towards financial loss, mental pain, physical agony suffered by the Complainant and his wife including cost of litigations.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 6% per annum on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Announced on 06.08.16
