Heard learned counsel for the  parties.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.      The unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant while travelling with his wife on 25/26.4.2008 in Tata Yashwantpur Super First train in Coach No. S-9 and Berth Nos. 41 & 42, he has locked his luggage in the stand of lower berth due to want of clamps/locking arrangements below the said berths of the coach.  He found that luggage is missing. Thereafter, he searched the GRP personnel but could not find him and finally the train reached at Sambalpur. He informed the O.I.C., GRP at Sambalpur. He has also informed the Railway staff at Jharsuguda to refund the cost of the ticket. When he lost the luggage and did not get the cost of the ticket, the complaint case was filed.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that the complainant was carrying goods by violating the Railway Manual. He has not carried the articles with the list of luggage as per the provision of section 100 of the Railways Act. He has not paid consideration for the luggage. However, they found that as per the provision of law the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on their part.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                             “xxxxxxxxx

          In the result the complaint is allowed and the OP Nos.  2 & 3 (the Railway Administration) are jointly and severally are directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.31,000/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order failing they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9(Nine) per cent per annum with effect from the said date till the actual date of payment.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submittedthat  the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order without considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him, they have refunded the half of the cost of the ticket i.e. Rs. 464/- and due to want of specific list of luggage and cost thereof they did not refund the amount. Moreover, he cited section 100 of the Railways Act. Since the FIR has already been lodged and the outcome has not come to the parties, the complainant is not entitled to any relief except the refund of 50% of the cost of the ticket  which was collected. Learned District Forum before passing the impugned order should have considered all these facts and law. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that he has submitted the list of properties  valued at Rs.30,000/- and rightly the learned District Forum assessed the loss and passed the impugned order which should be confirmed.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the    respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

9.      It is admitted fact that the complainant with his wife wastravelling in Tata Yashwantpur Super First train on 25/26.4.2008. It is also not in dispute that  theytravelled in Coach No. S-9 at Berth No. 41 & 42. There is no other document filed by the complainant to show that he booked the luggage. It appears that the complainant has already submitted the details of property stolen vide Annexure – B while lodged the FIR before the GRP. When details of property has been given and also informedto the concerned GRP and there is alreadypolice investigation started, the plea of the appellants that no list of property submitted is a falsehood. Not only this but also complainant also sent a letter to the RailwayPersonnel inviting theirattention. It isclearlymentioned  in that letter that he has claimed Rs.54,300/- towards loss of property before the General Manager, South Eastern Railway. Section 100 of The Railways Act, 1989  is as follows:-

                   “xxxxxxxxx

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 therefor 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 the servants.”

506.2 of the Railway Manual is as follows:-

                   “xxxxxxxxx

506.2 Luggage in charge of Second class passengers – Passengers are requested to take into a carriage of personal luggage as are required for their own use on the journey and can be placed in the carriage with other passengers or reducing the available accommodation the carriage. The articles mentioned under clause 505 should, under no circumstances be carried with passengers as luggage. Any passenger who commits a render himself liable to prosecution.”

10.    The aforesaid provision clearly said that the railway is responsible for the luggage which werebooked but the railway is not responsible for any theft or damage or loss of the luggage whichwere carried under the risk of the owner itself. Rather, it appears in this case that the complainant has alreadylodged FIR and the matter has already been taken care of. It also appears from the complaint that the railway people have helpedhim how to inform the police and their officer. Not only this but also they have refunded 50% cost of the tickets,in such circumstances, we  do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs – Railway. The discussion made by the learned District Forum do not disclose about the application of any legal provision. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

11.    The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

         The statutory amount deposited if any be refunded to the appellants with interestaccrued thereon if any on proper identification.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.