PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      Counsel for the parties heard.

2.      Both the foras have decided the case in favour of the complainant / respondent. The main question which falls for consideration is whether this is a case of theft or robbery.  If it is robbery then the consumer foras are certainly not armed with that power to decide this case.  If this is a case of theft, in that event, the consumer foras will have the jurisdiction.  The case of the complainant is that on 22.09.2008, at about 4 a.m. a miscreant, who look like a ‘Sardar’ removed her purse from below her pillow and ran away.  He vanished in thin air and was never heard again.  The police also could not trace him out.  The police sent the case as untraceable. 

3.      The counsel for the petitioner/opposite party has raised two submissions.  Firstly, he contended that this is a case of robbery and the Fora below arrogated the right to make decisions.  .  We do not agree with this submission.  His assumption is all wet.    Theft is defined in Section 378 of the IPC Act, which is reproduced as follows:

“Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

          Explanation1 – ………

          Explanation 2 – A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft.

          Explanation 3 – A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.

          Explanation 4 – …….

          Explanation – 5 -  ………”

The robbery under Section 390, I.P.C. reads:

“In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

When theft is robbery – Theft is ‘robbery’ if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.”

The present case certainly is covered under the definition of ‘theft’. The Fora exercised their powers within their realm.    Consequently, the fora below have rightly give the short shrift to this matter.

5.      The second submission made by the counsel for the petitioner was that the State is responsible for this incident.   Railways do not have the jurisdiction and the compensation, if any, should have been demanded from the State as the investigation of this case was conducted by the State Police and it is the duty of the State to maintain the law and order. It is also argued that the Railway is the biggest service provider to the citizens of this country. 

6.      These arguments were stated for their outright rejection.  The petitioner was travelling in the train.  The case is fully covered under the Railways.  It is surprising that the counsel for the petitioner himself canvassed that Railways are the biggest service provider but it does not appear so.  If it is biggest provider of service, they should be most caring and relief provider to their consumers.

7.      The counsel for the petitioner has raised copious objections merely for the sake of cavil.  The revision petition is sans merits and deserve dismissal with costs in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- which we hereby direct.  The costs be paid to the complainant through a demand draft directly within 45 days or else it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till its realization.