Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The correctness of the order dated 30-03-2016, by which the complaint case bearing no. 376/2015 has been allowed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central), is the issue in this Appeal. 

The plain averments are that the Respondent was robbed off his valuables inside the Howrah Station and was mercilessly beaten up by unidentified miscreants causing grave harm/injury to him and RPF/GRP personnel remained mute spectator to such incident.  As the Appellant failed to make any headway in the matter, aggrieved with such alleged inaction of the Appellant, the instant complaint case was filed. The case was resisted by the Appellant contending inter alia that payment of compensation out of untoward incident attracts the provisions made u/s 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and in terms of Sec. 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the Railway Claims Tribunal is only authorized under the said Act to inquire into and determine compensation for untoward incident covered u/s 124A of the 1989 Act.  Further case of the Appellant was that, no cause of action arose against it as the alleged untoward incident took place at Howrah station  and on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Respondent, a criminal case no. 107/12 u/s 379, IPC has been registered by the Government Railway Police, Howrah.  Such police force is under the administrative control of the Government of West Bengal and they are only authorized to institute investigation into such complaints.  Neither the Appellant nor its security staff, i.e., RPF is authorized to investigate for an act punishable u/s 379, IPC.  The Respondent also argued that u/s 24 of the Railways Act, 1989, Appellant’s stolen bag was not booked; it was allegedly stolen/snatched from his custody.  Since he failed to take proper care of his  property, he cannot claim any benefit for his own fault. 

Decision with reasons

We have heard both sides in the matter and gone through the documents on record very carefully.

It is alleged by the Respondent that some miscreants snatched his bag containing valuable jewelleries after assaulting him mercilessly which caused grave injury to him.  In support of his contention, the Respondent furnished medical papers pertaining to his treatment at a Government Medical College Hospital, papers pertaining to the criminal case and jewellery bills. 

In absence of any cogent evidence from the side of the Appellant to suggest otherwise, we find no reason at all to suspect the veracity of Respondent’s averment as regards happening of incident in question.

It is indeed unfortunate that although a hapless passenger was brutally assaulted and robbed off his valuables in broad daylight, perpetrators of such crime escaped the scene easily and could not be brought to justice, thanks to light vigil of station premises by railway personnel.  The incident, no doubt,  points out severe security lapses on the part of the Appellant Railway.  The Railway is duty bound to ensure safety and security of passengers as well as their belongings.  On both counts, the Appellant cut a sorry figure.

What is more worrisome is the fact that instead of feeling ashamed and showing empathy towards a bona fide passenger for his misery on account of the security lapses at the station premises, the Appellant put a brave face and disputed the Respondent’s claim citing various technicalities. 

First, it is contended by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that the Respondent needed to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking appropriate relief in the matter. 

We, however, find no substance in it.  It is because, the Railways Act, 1989 or for that matter, the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 do not put any specific embargo upon the Consumer Fora to deal with such disputes.  Thus, in terms of the provisions laid down under Sec. 3 of the 1986 Act, the Ld. District Forum was competent enough to adjudicate the matter.

Second, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant though labored hard to pass the buck upon the Government Railway Police, it appears that Sec. 11 of the RPF Act casts a crystal clear duty upon the RPF to protect and safeguard passenger area and passengers and to do any other act conducive to the better protection and security of railway passengers and passenger area. Needless to say, the Appellant miserably failed to discharge its bounden duty towards the Respondent. 

Third, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant casts serious doubt about the authenticity of the jewellery bills being placed on behalf of the Respondent to support his claim.   He argued that jewellery cash memos are ordinarily kept with the jewelleries purchased.  Therefore, if the jewelleries had indeed been robbed off, the cash memos would also get lost in the process. 

It is indeed a sad sight that, in a bid to hide its abrupt failure to protect the passenger, the Appellant could resort to such wild surmises and conjecture.  It is neither a custom nor general practice to keep jewellery bills inside the jewellery box; rather, the same is ordinarily kept inside the pocket of shirt/trouser or purse.

Fourth, in order to defend the indefensible, it is also argued by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that since the bag was not booked with the Railways, it had no responsibility to make good he alleged loss.  This is absolutely a bizarre proposition. Only because the concerned bag was not booked, the Appellant cannot disown its liability in any manner whatsoever.  If proper security arrangement was put in place inside the passenger area of the railway station concerned, the miscreant would not dare to attack and steal the bag of the Respondent.  The security lapse is palpable beyond any shade of doubt. We are not at all concerned with the fact as to whether the GRP could make any progress in its investigation into the matter or not. Prevention is always better than cure.  As noted hereinabove, if RPF personnel remained at their toes all the times, the untoward incident would not occur at all.  

It appears from the detail list of jeweleries that goods worth Rs. 1,37,915- was there inside the bag, which the Respondent was carrying for the marriage ceremony of his relative.  The incident took place in the year 2012 and since then, it is almost 7 years that the criminal case has been going on.  If there was even slightest qualm about the contention of the Respondent, no doubt, the same would come to fore by now. The Respondent furnished sufficient documentary proof to support his case. In view of this, the onus was upon the Appellant to furnish counter proof to refute the allegation of the Respondent.  However, the Appellant made no such endeavour. Thus, by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-  as compensation, we do not think that the Ld. District Forum had shown any undue biasness towards the Respondent.  Rather, on due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the Ld. District Forum spared the Appellant very lightly.  If a passenger is not safe inside one of India’s most major railway stations, that too, in broad daylight, the situation in small railway stations can be well understood.  The incident clearly demonstrates the fact that passenger safety does not feature on the priority list of the mandarins of Indian Railways.  It seems, imposition of exemplary costs was the only way out to inflict sense of responsibility among the errant officials.

Be that as it may, considering all aspects, we modify the impugned order to some extent.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent in part.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Appellant need not pay any penal damage to the Forum below, but it shall pay simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the entire period of default to the Respondent.