Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/481

UNION OF INDIA - RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

RISHI K.AGRAWAL - Opp.Party(s)

SH.H.S.RAJPUT

02 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 481 OF 2019

 (Arising out of order dated 15.02.2019 passed in C.C.No.257/2016 by District Commission, Satna)

 

CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD THROUGH

UNION OF INDIA, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI & ORS.                                     …          APPELLANTS.

 

         Versus

 

RISHI KUMAR AGRAWAL.                                                                                    …         RESPONDENT.

 

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                

                                      O R D E R

02.07.2024

 

           Shri Sandeep Savita, learned counsel for the appellants.

           Shri Ruchir Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                        The opposite parties/appellants-Railways has filed this appeal against the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.257/2016 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.                

2.                The facts of the case in short are that the complainant along with his family members was travelling in train number 12428 in 2AC on 14.04.2016 from Anand Vihar Terminal to Satna. It is submitted that during 

-2-

journey his mobile handset One plus (stand stone black) worth Rs.24,497/- was stolen. When the train reached at Allahabad, he came to know about it and he tried to lodge FIR at Allahabad Station but due to non-cooperation of the Railways staff and the Police he could not file the same. Finally he lodged FIR at destination in Satna. It is alleged that during journey on account of negligence of railways in service and security he caused loss. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission, seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest. 

3.                The opposite parties in their reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant has stated that his mobile handset was stolen between Anand Vihar Terminal to Allahabad and therefore the District Commission at Satna has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Railways charged fare for only passengers and not for their luggage. As per Bhartiya Rail Vanajiya Niyamawali and Bhartiya Rail Conference Association Coaching Tariff No.26 Part-I (Vol-I) rule 506,100 and 101, the Railways cannot be held responsible if the luggage owned by the complainant was not booked with the Railways. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

-3-

4.                The District Commission allowed the complaint directing the opposite party-Railways to pay Rs.22,999/- the cost of stolen article to the complainant within 45 days along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 03.10.2016. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs Rs.2,000/- is also directed to be paid within 45 days. It is also directed that if the amount is not paid within 45 days, the whole amount shall carry interest @10% p.a. Hence this appeal by the Railways.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the parties.  Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the Railways argued that the District Commission has not considered this important aspect that FIR was lodged at GRP Satna whereas the incident took place between Anand Vihar Terminal and Allahabad and therefore, the District Commission at Satna has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He argued that under Section 100 of the Railways Act, the Railways cannot be held responsible for unbooked luggage. He further argued that the Railways did not charge for the luggage of passengers and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.  He argued that the District Commission failed to consider that in the passenger coach as per Indian Rail Sammelan Coaching Dar Sankhya 26 Part-1 Rule 506.2, the luggage kept by the

-4-

passengers are at their own risk. The complainant has not been able to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. He argued that it is also not proved that whether the complainant was carrying mobile handset at the relevant time or not. In the FIR he has mentioned the cost of mobile handset Rs.20,000/-. He therefore, argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supporting the impugned order argued that the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint directing the Railways to pay compensation and costs on account of their negligence.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the record as also the impugned order we find that the complainant along with his complaint has filed copy of FIR. The complainant, nowhere in his complaint, has mentioned that he placed his mobile handset securely after following the security measures. He has stated that at Allahabad Railway Station he found that his mobile handset was missing.  The complainant has alleged that in case of theft committed by unauthorized passengers present in the AC coach, it is the responsibility of the Railway to pay compensation. However, the complainant has not

-5-

made any allegations against the railway authorities that the concerned TTE allowed unauthorized passengers in the said coach and there were no railway staff of RPF personnel. The complainant has also not mentioned the same in his FIR. The complainant has not been able to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-railways. The possibility cannot be ruled out that he might have dropped the mobile handset during his journey by his own mistake. Thus we find that the complainant himself was negligent in not keeping his mobile handset safe.  

9.                We find that the District Commission has without any basis allowed the complaint when there was no evidence to substantiate the complainant’s contention. In such circumstances, when the complainant himself was not vigilant in keeping his belongings safe, how can the Railways be held responsible?

10.              Hon’ble Supreme Court in Station Superintendent & Anr Vs Surender Bhola III (2023) CPJ 11 (SC)has held:

“We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way a deficiency in service by the Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held liable.”

 

11.              In such circumstances, when the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service against the railways, therefore, on merits as also in view of the recent pronouncement of Apex Court, we are of a considered

-6-

view that the District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent as the complainant has no case on merits.

12.              In view of the above discussion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

13.              In the result, this appeal is hereby allowed with no order as to costs.             

                       (A. K. Tiwari)                (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

                     Acting President                       Member