Delhi

StateCommission

A/1012/2014

THE G.M. NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHAVETA CHAUDHARY - Opp.Party(s)

23 Mar 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 23.03.2017

 

First Appeal No. 1012/2014

 

(Arising out of the order dated 05.09.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, M-Block, New Delhi in complaint case No. 1024/11)

 

 

        In the Matter of:

                                                                     

                1. The General Manager,

          Northern Railway, Baroda House,

          New Delhi

 

          2. Divisional Manager,

          Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station,

          Nizamuddin East,

          New Delhi

……Appellants     Versus     Shaveta Chaudhary, Rajendra Tractor Traders, Begu Road, Sirsa (Haryana)                                     …….Respondent

CORAM

 

  Ms. Salma Noor, Member 

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

1.             This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 05.09.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in Complant Case No. 1024/11.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant started journey from New Delhi to Habibganj Bhopal by the Train No. 2156, Bhopal Express on 09.10.2010 on a confirmed ticket in AC 2 Tier coach and she was allotted berth No. 16 (Upper berth). At around 20:45 Hrs the respondent/complainant boarded the train and the train left the station at its scheduled departure 21:00 Hrs. After keeping her luggage on her reserved berth which was an upper berth she decided to remove her shoes and keep her another bag on ground floor, below the seat to keep it safe, but when she climbed back to her seat within 10-20- seconds her luggage was stolen, which had one laptop and several valuable articles worth of Rs. 45,000/- approx.

3.             This incident took place within few minutes from the departure of the train  from Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station. After that she searched for the TTE or some authorized officials all over the compartment but nobody was available at the spot.  Being aggrieved she made a call to PCR but they verbally assured her, showing their difficulty to help her as the train had already departed from the Delhi Railway Station. The TTE arrived after an hour to check the tickets and he also showed his difficulty to assisting her in any manner.

4.             On 10.10.2010 she filed an FIR with GRP, Habibganj Railway Station u/s 379 IPC vide FIR No. 068/2010. The FIR was received by the Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station and registered as FIR No. 135 of 30.12.2010 u/s 379 IPC. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant has also filed an online complaint of the incident but had not received any response from the appellant/OP as the respondent/complainant has not received any response from the appellant/OP she filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum, New Delhi alleging deficiency on the part of OP with the following prayers:

                “That the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft till the date of realization as compensation for the theft of the stolen baggage and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony/injury/harassment suffered by the complainant. In total, a sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Five Thousand only) excluding interest is required to be paid by the respondents.”  

5.             Notice was served upon the appellant/OP who filed the written statement stating that there is no negligence or deficiency in service by the railway as incident of luggage being stolen is the result of failure of law and order, which is a State subject and Railway is not responsible for such failure. Appellant has further in his written statement stated that the railway has no responsibility for unbooked luggage of passengers and since the stolen luggage wasn’t booked or paid for therefore there is no “Service” as such in terms of Consumer Protection Act. Appellant/OP further refers to Section 100 of Railway Act to contend no liability, except in case of negligence or misconduct of its employee.

6.             Thereafter, both the parties filed their evidence.

7.             After considering the evidence of both the parties the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the appellant/OP to pay a compensation of Rs. 35,000/-  for deficiency in service and 10,000/- for litigation expenses.

8.             Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.

9.             I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted by the parties that respondent/complainant was travelling in a “reserved compartment” and there is no dispute that luggage got stolen within few minutes after keeping the same on her “Reserved Berth” and at the time of incident no TTE, Train conductor/coach attendant/Guards or GRP Escort were present in the compartment. It is also admitted that no assistance was provided to her immediately. Even no form for lodging an FIR was given to her and finally the respondent/complainant registered FIR at Bhopal after reaching there. The contention of the appellant/OP that luggage of the respondent/complainant was lost because of the negligence of respondent/complainant and appellant/OP cannot be held liable for the same. Further it is submitted that general security and law and order is the State subject and the prevention and detection of crime is the constitutional responsibility of the State Govt. being executed by the GRP. Railway have to depend on the State Govt., for the control of crime    over Railway. Thus the Railway department having no responsibility for the goods and articles carried by the passengers, and the passengers are fully responsible for the safety of their own luggage and articles.

10.            Above submission of the appellant/OP is not acceptable as in view of the Central Government Legislation “The Railway Protection Force Act, 1957” has created a dedicated Protection Force called as “Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred as “RPF”) which primarily has been entrusted a duty to protect the Property of Indian Railway, its Passenger and their luggage. In case of any mis-happening or adverse situation of Law & Order, said RPF is bound to act in order to protection the passengers and their luggage. Therefore, the submission of appellant/OP is misleading and only a lame excuse.

11.            Another contention of the appellant is that there was no negligence on the part of Railway Administration and unless goods in question are booked with the Railway Administration under the provisions of Indian Railway Act 1989, are not liable to pay compensation. He therefore, submitted that it was for the respondent/complainant to take care of the luggage in question being carried by him. The appellant/OP has relied upon the provisions of Section 100 of the aforesaid Act which the railway cannot be held liable for compensation.

12.            Section 100 of the Railway Act provided as under:

                        “A Railway Administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt, therefore, 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 negligence or misconduct on its part of on the part of any its servants.”    

 

13.            The aforesaid section is divided into two parts. One part deals with luggage booked by the passengers and other part deals with luggage which is carried by the passengers in his charge.

14.            The first part of Section 100 provides that the railway administration shall not be responsible for loss, etc. of any luggage unless the railway servant has booked the luggage and given receipt thereof. The second part reads that in the case of luggage which is carried by passenger in his charge railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss unless it is also proved that the loss is due to the negligence of the railway staff. In this particular case the findings of the lower Fora are that there has been negligence on the part of Railway or on the part of its servants. There is no case for us to reopen the factual findings.

15.            A passenger travelling by a train is entitled to carry certain baggage or luggage within permissible limits of weight, free of cost. There is no        question of entrusting such baggage/luggage to the Railways and getting a receipt thereof. If a loss takes place of such a luggage, Railways can be held responsible provided that there is negligence on the part of Railways or any of its servants, provided, of course, that the passenger himself has taken reasonable care of his personal baggage as expected of a prudent person.

16.            Further, in view of decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay v. Union of India Ors., II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC) : 2004 (3) Supreme 291, the Apex Court observed that;

             “Railway Administration cannot escape its liability for negligence and deficiency in service in failing to prevent unauthorized persons assaulting passengers in railway compartment and taking away their luggage.”

 

17.            Thus, in my view, a passenger travelling by a train is entitled to carry certain baggage or luggage free of costs. There is no question of entrusting such a baggage/luggage to the railway and getting receipt thereof. It is the duty of the railways to see that every passenger travelling by train reaches his destination safe and sound as once railways issues a ticket to a consumer for travelling by train and permits the consumer to carry luggage it has to ensure for the safety of the passengers and also for the safety of his belongings and any shortcoming or inadequacy or imperfection amounts to deficiency in service and therefore it renders the railways liable to pay compensation as loss or injury including the mental injury suffered by him.

18.            In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Ld. District Forum and dismiss the appeal.

 

 

                A copy of the order be sent to the parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. The record of the Ld. District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

(Salma Noor)

Presiding Member