Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/1952

RAILWAYS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAVITA AGRAWAL - Opp.Party(s)

SH.RAJEEV JAIN

18 Jul 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 1952 OF 2016

 (Arising out of order dated 08.11.2016 passed in C.C.No.51/2015 by District Commission, Jhabua)

 

INDIAN RAILWAYS THROUGH

SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS,

NEW DELHI.                                                                                                      …          APPELLANT

 

             Versus

                 

1. SAVITA AGRAWAL,

    W/O DR. O. P. AGRAWAL,

    R/O JHABUA (M.P.)

 

2. DR. O. P. AGRAWAL,

    R/O JHABUA (M.P.)

 

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

    (RAILWAY) JHANSI (UP)                                                                             …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                      

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                    

                                      O R D E R

 

18.07.2023

 

            Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondents.

                                   

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        This appeal by the opposite party/appellant-Railways is directed against the order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jhabua (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.51/2015, whereby the complaint filed complainants/respondent no.1 & 2 has been allowed.

2.                The facts of the case in short are that the complainants were travelling in AC-2 coach of train no.12722-Dakshin Express, on 12.10.2014

-2-

from Delhi to Bhopal. It is alleged that during the course of the journey, the purse of the complainant no.1 was stolen.  It is further submitted that before Jhansi, one tea vendor entered into the AC-2 coach and thereafter the said accident had occurred. The purse contained Rs.30,000/- cash, 400 US dolar amounting Rs.25,000/-, two passports, two mobiles costing Rs.40,000/-, two pancard, digital camera of canon costing Rs.20,000/-. The complainants eventually lodged FIR at GRP Police Station, Jhansi. It is alleged that due to negligence of the opposite parties, the purse of complainant no.1 containing aforesaid articles was stolen. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the Railways, the complainants approached the District Commission, seeking relief. 

3.                The opposite parties in their reply before the District Commission raised objection that the complainants did not mention the PNR no. During journey no complaint was made to the running staff such as TTE, coach attendant. The complainants also did not disclose that at which station incident took place. There is misjoinder of proper parties. As per the complainants, the incident occurred between Delhi to Bhopal Railway Station, therefore, the District Commission, Jhabua has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Railway administration is not responsible for loss as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 if the luggage is not booked. If

 

-3-

some valuable goods were kept in the bag, the complainant ought to have booked the same. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties, jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainants within a period of one month. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.

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

6.                Learned counsel for the Railways argued that the District Commission has not considered this important aspect that the complainants did not produce any ticket or PNR number. On the date of incident no other co-passengers except the complainants lodged any complaint. The complainants also did not make any complaint to the TTE, Guard or coach attendant. The complainants should be vigilant about their belongings. The complainants have not been able to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. He therefore, argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on careful perusal of the record as also the impugned order we find that it is an admitted fact the complainants are residing at Jhabua and the instant incident occurred when they were travelling between Delhi to Bhopal. However, they filed a complaint before the District Commission, Jhabua.

-4-

The opposite parties-Railways took a specific plea regarding territorial jurisdiction in the matter but the District Commission neither considered this issue nor discussed in the impugned order. 

8.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Limited IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) while dealing with a case of State Commission wherein fire broke out in godown at Ambala, insurance policy taken at Ambala, claim was made at Ambala and the complaint was filed at Chandigarh has held in para 8 as under:

                   “Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company has branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant.  In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17 (2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen at Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the Insurance Company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17 (2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.”                        

 

9.                From the above decision, it is clear that merely because the opposite party-Railways are having their offices all over India will not be a foundation for territorial jurisdiction. It is pertinent to mention here that at Jhabua, there is no railway station.

-5-

10.              It is relevant to mention here that the complailnants travelled from Delhi to Bhopal and incident took place in between, therefore the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided on the basis that where the complainants are residing. It is only to be seen that where the opposite party actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business and in view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Apex Court, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 11(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. Here in the present case, the cause of action wholly arose between Delhi to Bhopal and not consider to be arose at Jhabua, where there is no railway station.

11.              Thus in our considered view, the District Commission, Jhabua had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

12.              In the similar facts and circumstances, the Gujrat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Cox & Kings Ltd Vs Ansuyaben Desai & Ors I (2022) CPJ 96 (Guj) has held that since the

complainant deposited the amount of tour at Surat, therefore, the Surat District Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the aforesaid case, the complainant booked a tour for Bangkok and deposited the amount for the same at Surat, thereafter the dispute arose between the parties at Surat, the Gujrat State Commission held that payment of the tour was deposited with Surat Branch that is why the case of action arisen at

-6-

Surat, So the Surat District Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

13.              If the case is considered on merits, recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7116/2017 (Station Superintendent & Anr Vs Surender Bhola) decided on June 15, 2023 has held that “If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held responsible.”

14.              Therefore, we are of a considered view that the District Commission, Jhabua has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In view of the recent pronouncement of the Apex Court, the complainants have also no case on merits.

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

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

 

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

            Presiding Member                    Member