Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This is an Appeal filed by the Indian Railway & Ors. against the Order dated 30-03-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in CC/217/2015.

In a nutshell, case of the Complainant was that her vanity bag containing valuables, including cash was snatched by an unknown miscreant from the reserved compartment of the train on the way to Howrah from Tinsukia, Assam by Kamrup Express.  Since no RPF personnel or TTE were present in the compartment at that time, the matter could be reported to them after about 40 minutes when they arrived at the spot.  Later on, formal FIR was lodged with the Howrah GRPS.  However, as no proper step was taken to recover the stolen items, the complaint case was filed.

By filing a WV, the OP No. 2 submitted that in terms of Sec. 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, Railway Authorities cannot be held responsible for any loss of luggage unless the same is booked under proper receipt which was not done in the present case.  It denied any negligence on its part.

Decision with reasons

We have heard both sides and gone through the documents on record.

Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to adjudicate identical issue is routinely raised by the Railway Authorities in cases after cases and it is the consistent view of this Commission that the provision as contained u/s 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 is no bar to try such disputes.  In this regard, the observation of this Commission in A/418/2016 is appended below which is self-explanatory.

“In the matter of  G.M., South Central Railway vs R.V. Kumar And Anr. reported in 2005 CTJ 862 (CP) (NCDRC), the Hon’ble National Commission while dealing with the identical issue has been pleased to observe as under:

‘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 a prudent person’.

In this regard, it may not be totally out of the place to mention the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay v. Union of India Ors.,  reported in II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC) : 2004 (3) Supreme 291 wherein the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to observe as under:

‘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.’

Further, with regard to the loss in a goods train, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Udho Ram & Sons, pertinently observed as under which is relevant for the facts of the present case:

‘It may be true that any precautions taken may not always be successful against the loss in transit on account of theft, but even so evidence should be offered with respect to the extent of the precautions taken and with respect to what the Railway Protection Police itself did at the place, where the train had to stop. It must be taken to be the duty of the Railway Protection Police to get out of the Guard's van whenever the train stops, be it at the railway platform or at any other place. In fact, the necessity to get down and watch the train when it stops at a place other than a station is greater when the train stops at a station, where at least on the station side there would be some persons in whose presence the miscreants would not dare to tamper with any wagon and any tampering to be done at a station is likely to be on the offside.’

In view of this, the notion of the Appellants that Sec. 100 of the Railways Act exonerates them of all liabilities unless the luggage is booked appears to be completely misplaced.  In my considered opinion, in case belongings of a passenger get misplaced, particularly from a reserved compartment, the Railways must own up full responsibility for the same because during train journey, the responsibility of ensuring safety and security of lives of passengers as also their personal belongings lie with the Railways”. 

In order to shrug off any responsibility in the matter, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants drew our attention to a recent decision of the Hon’ble National Commission [R.P. No. 622/2018].  However, on a reference to the said order, we find that the facts and circumstances of the said case was altogether different vis-à-vis present complaint case and as such, it appears to us that the same has got no bearing in this Appeal.

In the said case, Hon’ble National Commission noticed that in the FIR lodged by the Complainant, there was no mention of any unauthorized entry of any person inside the reserved compartment.  However, in this case, from the deposition made by Sri Batchu Mullah, Head Constable/RPF/TE-Coy/Rangiya and other RPF personnel, it transpires that the Respondent did complain of unauthorized entry of a person inside the reserved coach at night.  In fact, it has been duly confirmed by various RPF personnel in course of their deposition that on receipt of complaint from the Respondent, they carried out necessary searches to try and recover the alleged stolen articles, but in vain.

The most important aspect of this case, in our considered opinion is that, whether the Respondent succeeded in driving home the point of unauthorized entry of any person inside the concerned reserved compartment or not.

It transpires from the deposition of Sri Dhirendra Nath Sarkar, Head Constable/RPF that on query, it was informed to him that the suspected person boarded the reserved compartment at Lumding station and occupied berth no. 39.  In case of any doubt, certainly the veracity of such allegation could have been ascertained by quizzing co-passengers of the said compartment.  Significantly, no such allegation, however, is made from the side of the Appellants that the Respondent resorted to falsehood in this regard.  Thus, prima facie, there is no reason to disbelieve that an unauthorized person indeed entered the reserved compartment and occupied berth no. 39.  This aspect clearly brings to fore gross negligence on the part of the concerned TTE and RPF personnel, who were supposed to be on their toes to thwart unauthorized entries of persons inside the reserved compartment.  Further, on due consideration of the material on record, it does not appear to us that the Respondent made a concocted story for making any unlawful gain. Above all, in the FRT filed u/s 379, IPC, no such adverse findings is made about the veracity of alleged incident.

It appears from the referred decision of the Hon’ble National Commission [RP/622/2018] that the Hon’ble Commission held the Complainant of that case equally responsible for not locking the suitcases with the help of a chain before he went to sleep.  In this case, however, no such negligence can be attributed to the Respondent for the simple reason that one is not expected to lock one’s vanity bag with chain. 

The reason behind awarding lump sum compensation has been duly explained by the Ld. District Forum.  As such, we are not reopening the issue here.

In such premises; more so, fortified by the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Union of India v. Dev Kant & Ors., II (2018) CPJ 461 (NC), we are inclined to uphold the decision of the Ld. District Forum.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Appellants to the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.