Delhi

StateCommission

FA/517/2013

G.M. NORTHERN RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

RADHA RAMNATHAN - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 21.02.2017

 

First Appeal No. - 517/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in complaint case No. 140/2004)

 

        In the Matter of:  

 

                1. General Manager Northern Railway

          Baroda House K.G. Marg, New Delhi

            

          2. Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhavan,

          New Delhi

……Appellant     Versus   1. Smt. Radha Ramnathan W/o Late Sh. S. Ramanathan R/o H. No. 281, BHEL Housing Complex Vinayak Apartment Plot No. C-58/19 Sec. 62, Noida, U.P.                                                                              …….Respondent

CORAM

  Justice Veena Birbal, President

  Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

1.             Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant purchased a railway ticket to travel from Hazrat Nizamuddin to Secunderabad by train No. 2648 Kongu Express on 22.01.2003 and her ticket was reserved in AC-III coach No. ASI berth No. 9 and paid a fare of Rs. 1,264/-. The complainant boarded the train from Hazrat Nizamuddin on 22.01.2003. It is alleged that there was no chain in her berth where she could fasten the luggage. According to the complainant she was going to Secunderabad to attend the “Kanaka Abhishekam” ceremony of her mother and she was carrying valuable sarees and jewellery worth of Rs. 1,34,400/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that at the time of running of the train many unauthorized passengers had entered into the coach and started moving around and neither the ticket checker nor the Railway Protection Force took any steps to get them out despite of complainant’s raising objection about it at about 10:30 p.m. to the coach attendant and patrolling coach railway Protection Force official but no action was taken by them. It is further alleged that on reaching Bhopal she found that her black colour suitcase was missing and immediately she contacted the coach attendant and lodged a report giving details of the contents of the suitcase in which she was carrying jewellery and cloth worth of Rs. 1,34,400/-. OPs failed to provide the safe custody therein to the complainant. Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,34,400/- towards loss of her suitcase and compensation for mental and physical harassment along with costs of litigation.

2.             On notice, OP filed reply stating therein that complainant hired the services of the railway/OPs for consideration to carry her from Hazrat Nizamuddin to Secunderabad and for that a proper berth of the train was provided to complainant. But complainant never booked her luggage or gets it insured from the OPs. It was further alleged  that as per Section 100 of the Railway Act the railway Department is not responsible for the goods which were not booked with them. They also submitted that it was the duty of the passenger to take care of their luggage while travelling as the suitcase was not lost due to carelessness of the railway/OPs staff. It was further alleged that in absence of any documentary evidence/proof it could not be believed that the complainant was carrying jewellery/cloths worth of Rs. 1,34,400/-

3.             The District Forum allowed the parties to file their evidence by way of affidavits and heard the arguments. Since the complainant was more than of 84 years of age and her daughter appeared and argued the case.

4.             OP did not appear before the Ld. District Forum after filing written arguments and District Forum after considering the evidence produced by the parties allowed the complaint with the directions to the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 1,34,400/- for loss of the luggage along with compensation of Rs. 5000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 11,000/-.

5.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum the appellant/OP filed the present appeal.

6.             We have heard, counsel for the appellant as well as daughter of respondent and perused the record. There is no dispute between the parties that respondent/complainant travelled from Hazrat Nizamuddin to Secunderabad by train No. 2648 Kongu Express on 22.01.2003 on reserved ticket and paid a fare of Rs. 1,264/-. The respondent/complainant alleged that she has lost her black suitcase containing the following items.  

S.No.                         Items                                Value (in Rs.)

I.      Gold chain 2-75 gms (45 gms+30 gms)           37,500/-

II.     Pear chain with gold-2 (pearl value-

        Rs. 1,000/- + 16 gms.)                                 9,000/-

III.    Long pearl chain with gold-1, (pearl value-

        Rs. 4,000/- + 32 gms.)                                 16,000/-

IV.    Diamond ring-1 & Gold ring 3 (3 stones &

        gold 18 gms.)                                             22,000/-

V.     Gold Ear Studd-4 gms                                  2,400/-

VI.    Om Coin (1 tola) 20-10 gms.                                 5,000/-

VII.   Small dollar ear ring 1-2 gms.                       1,000/-

VIII. Silver items (small plate-2, bowl-4,

        Tumbler-3, Panchapatra Udrani- 1 set)           8,000/-

IX.    Sarees- 13 (Mysore silk 2 – Kanjipuram-11)    22,000/-

X.     Plain Saree-4                                              5,000/-

XI.    Blouse-10 + Petticoat                                   5,000/-

XII.   Pass Book A/c No. 005949

        Total Value                                                 1,33, 400/-

7.             In her complaint the respondent/complainant alleged that many unauthorized passengers entered the coach and were started moving around and there was no ticket checker Railway Protection Force in the coach. Therefore, she raised an objection to the railway attendant. On reaching Bhopal  station respondent/complainant found that her suitcase was missing and she immediately contacted the coach attendant and lodged a report giving details of the articles which were in her suitcase.

8.             Ld. counsel for the appellant/OP has submitted that there was no negligence on the part of railway administration and unless goods in question are booked with railway, the railway administration under the provisions of Indian Railway Act, 1989 is not liable to pay compensation. He therefore submitted that it was for the respondent/complainant to take care of the luggage in question being carried by him. 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 a 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 vied 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 the TT 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/OP 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.

16.            In our opinion, the Ld. District Forum, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi has a requisite jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case in consonance with the Section 11(2)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein a complaint is maintainable in a District Forum where the case of action wholly or in part arises. The factual matrix of the matter is that the respondent/complainant purchased/booked the confirmed ticket from Delhi and started its journey from Hazrat Nizamuddin to Secunderabad. The respondent/complainant lost her luggage during the travel, the ticket for which were purchased at Delhi since the confirmed ticket was purchased from New Delhi, Nizamuddin the cause of action arose in Delhi. Hence the contention of the appellant/OP that the Ld. District Forum at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case is baseless. A reference can be made to the following cases:

                        “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.

                        “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.”

17.            Further contention of the appellant is that Hon’ble District Forum passed an award of Rs. 1,33,400/- in favour of respondent/complainant without any documentary evidence/bills. In this regard we have to see that the respondent/complainant having of 74 years while travelling was going to attend the ‘Kanaka Abhishekam’ ceremony of her grand son  and was carrying some gold items for that ceremony. From our day to day experience, we know that sometimes it is not possible for us to keep every bill, invoice for each and every article. In this case the respondent/complainant failed to provide any documentary evidence like bills etc. to support her allegations but she filed her own affidavit. Therefore, we do not find any valid reason to disbelieve the respondent/complainant who is an old lady aged about 74 years in the year 2004 and had running from pillar to post to get her claim and sorted out and tried her best to convince the appellant/OP for the same but all went in vain. Considering the material on record, we find that the respondent/complainant has not asked for any higher amount. The amount quoted by her for her lost articles is of Rs. 1,33,400/-. We cannot disbelieve   the lady of that age will tell a lie for such an amount. It is also evident from the record that there was a huge suffering and time and harassment of nearly 10 years before the District Forum and about 4 years before us in this appeal. The compensation awarded to her is not higher side.

18.            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.

19.            In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum has not erred in allowing the complaint of the respondent/complainant. Hence, we dismiss the appeal.

                A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. The record of Ld. District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.  

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member