PER SHRI S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 30/04/2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Wardha, dismissing the Consumer Complaint No.CC/07/94.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that,
1. On 04/02/2007 the appellant/complainant- Devendrakumar Rawat was travailing with his wife by railway train No. 2722 from Bhopal to Wardha. They were carrying suitcase containing gold and silver ornaments. During the journey the ornaments from their suitcase are stolen away. They came to known about the theft of ornaments when they reached to their house after completion of the journey. Therefore, they made complaint with Police but the ornaments are not recovered. Therefore, the complainant made consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the railway department and claiming cost of the ornaments at Rs. 2,51,502/- and compensation.
2. The opponents/respondents resisted the complaint by their written version contending inter alia that the complaint is not at all tenable. It is submitted that the railway department is not responsible for any theft of the ornaments. It is submitted that the subject articles, if at all lost, that was because of negligence and carelessness on the part of the complainant itself. It is submitted that as the stolen ornaments were not booked with railway department, the railway department is not at all responsible for the same, etc. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
3. On hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record the District Consumer Forum held that as the ornaments alleged to have been stolen away from the railway journey the railway department is not responsible and there is no deficiency in service on the part of railway department. Keeping with this finding the District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the same impugned judgment and order the complainant has preferred this appeal.
5. At the stage of hearing before admission, we heard Mr. Deoras, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/ complainant and perused the copy of impugned judgment and order and considering the facts of the matter, we have decided to dispose of this appeal on the stage of admission only.
6. As nobody for the respondents/opponents is present, we have had no opportunity to hear them.
7. Undisputed facts are that on 04/02/2007 the complainant/ appellant and his wife were travailing by railway train No. 2722 from Bhopal to Wardha. On the next date of journey when they opened their suitcase at their house they found that ornaments were missing from their suitcase and the complainant lodged the complaint with the Police. The Police made investigation but ornaments are not recovered.
8. The crux in this matter is as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the railway department.
9. Mr. Deoras, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that though the ornaments were not kept in the custody or locker of the railway department, when the complainant and his wife is travelling by the railway carrying the suitcase containing ornaments, it was the necessary for the railway department to take care, etc. But when, undisputedly, the ornaments were not given in the custody of the railway department and even no intimation carrying ornaments in the railway was given to railway department, contention of the appellant/ complainant that it was necessary for the railway department to take care of the ornaments, can not be accepted. When the railway department was not aware about carrying of ornaments or any valuables with passengers i.e. complainant and his wife, there could be no reason for the railway department to take care of those ornaments. Hence, there could be no deficiency in service on the part of the railway department. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum has rightly held that the railway department is not responsible for the theft of ornaments of the complainant and dismissed the complaint. We find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, no interference is warranted.
10. For the forgoing reasons the appeal is being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed summarily.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
Dated:- 10/12/2012.
