O R D E R (ORAL) 1. This Revision Petition, by the General Manager, Norther Railway, is directed against the order dated 15.11.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.04/2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has reversed the order dated 26.7.2012, passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.265/2007. By the said order, the State Commission had dismissed the Complaint preferred by the Petitioner, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Railways in not compensating him for the loss of two suit cases, while travelling in a reserved coach from Lucknow to New Delhi on 2.9.2000, on the ground that the Complainant had failed to prove that he was carrying the luggage and had taken due care and caution for protecting it. 2. The short controversy before the State Commission was whether the Complaint, alleging deficiency on the part of the Railways in allowing unauthorized persons in a reserved compartment, resulting in theft of the suitcases was maintainable against the Railways, in the teeth of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as follows : 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 its servants. 3. The stand of the Railways in its written version was that since the baggage in question had not been booked against a receipt, it was not liable to compensate the Complainant for the said loss on account of theft. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the afore-extracted statutory provision, we are in complete agreement with the interpretation of the provision by the State Commission. The State Commission has correctly held that the provision is in two parts. The first part deals with the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration on non-delivery of the luggage, which is booked with the Railways against a receipt, which is normally kept in the brake van and the second part deals with the luggage, which is carried by a passenger with him and kept in the passenger coach itself, which is the case here. 5. In so far as the question as to whether there was negligence on the part of its servants is concerned, the mere fact that it has come on record that there were unauthorized persons in the reserved coach, who were not asked to de-board, per se amounts to an act of negligence on the part of the ticket collector, a Railway employee. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the State Commission to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railways in permitting the unauthorized persons to travel in a reserved compartment, having not been specifically challenged and the fact that the total amount involved in the case is a paltry sum of ₹25,000/-, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order or a fit case for exercise of our Revisional jurisdiction. 6. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. |
