Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/2147

RAILWAY MANDAL PRABHANDAK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT DEEPALI - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jun 2023

ORDER

 

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2147 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 09.10.2019 passed in C.C.No.256/2015 by District Commission, Indore-1)

 

1. DIVISIONAL GENERAL MANAGER,

    (WESTERN RAILWAY)

    RATLAM DIVISION, DO BATTI CHOURAHA,

    RATLAM (M.P.)

 

2. DIVISIONAL GENERAL MANAGER,

    (CENTRAL RAILWAY)

    VICTORIA TERMINAL, MUMBAI (M.S.)

 

3. STATION MASTER,

    RAILWAY STATION CAMPUS,

    INDORE (M.P)                                                                                           … APPELLANTS.

 

                  Versus

 

SMT. DEEPALI,

W/O LATE SHRI DEEPAK BAGDARE,

R/O 103, SECTOR-C, BAKHTAWAR,

RAMNAGAR, INDORE (M.P.)                                                                     …. RESPONDENT.  

                      

BEFORE :

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

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER                

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri H. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellants.

           Shri Abhinav P. Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On  30.06.2023)

                        The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:

 

                     This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants-Railways (hereinafter referred to as ‘Railways’) is directed against the order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

-2-

Commission, Indore-1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.256/2015 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’)

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant had booked ticket for herself for journey by ‘Indore-Pune Express’ on 12.09.2014, from Indore to Pune. The complainant was allotted berth no.56 in S-10 coach. It is submitted she had kept her gold and diamond ornaments costing Rs.6,00,000/- in her hand bag. On 13.09.2014 in morning, when she was sitting on her berth and the train was running near Kalyan, an unknown person came, snatched her bag and jumped off from the moving train. The bag carrying jewelry items.  She lodged a complaint in Railway Police Station Pune which was forwarded to Kalyan Railway Police.  It is submitted that it was the responsibility of the Railways that the passengers travelling in reserved coach will reached to their destination safely. The complainant therefore alleging negligence and deficiency in service on part of opposite parties/Railways had filed instant complaint before the District Commission, seeking cost of articles Rs.6,00,000/-, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and other relief.

3.                The opposite parties/Railways in reply before the District Commission raised objection regarding maintainability of the complaint on the basis of territorial jurisdiction that since the incident took place at Kalyan

-3-

(Maharashtra), the District Commission, Indore had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The Railways also raised objection on the ground of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 submitting that railway authority is not responsible in case of theft when the item is not booked. It is further submitted that under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, case of theft during train journey are not maintainable before the District Commission. In case of theft or loss of goods carried by the passengers, on complaint being made, the Conductor/Coach Attendant, Guard or GRP used to make available FIR form to the passengers. Railways had provided steel rings underneath the berth for locking and keeping safe the luggage. For safety of unbooked luggage, the passengers themselves are responsible.  From the FIR, it is clear that the complainant was not travelling on her reserved berth instead she was travelling on another unreserved vacant berth which is negligence on her part. The complainant has shown cost of her jewelry was Rs.6,00,000/- but she has not filed any supporting document such as bills etc. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the Railways. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

4.                The District Commission allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties-Railways jointly or severally to pay cost of her stolen articles Rs.5,68,000/- within a period of two months failing which the amount

-4-

shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs is also awarded.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties/appellants-Railways argued that the impugned order of the District Commission is against the law and principles of natural justice. The District Commission has failed to consider this aspect that the complainant failed to produce any bills regarding the articles stolen. The complainant has also not filed any document that she took out her ornaments from locker and was having during journey. Even then the District Commission has awarded compensation. The complainant has been careless during her journey and the Railways cannot be held liable to compensate her more particularly when no negligence or deficiency in service has been established on their part. He argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) Nos.34738-34739/2012 (Vijay Kumar Jain Vs Union of India & Anr) decided on 02.07.2013 decision of the National Commission in Zonal Manager/General Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.) & Anr Vs Puroshattam Mohta I (2019) CPJ 335 (NC) and decisions of this Commission in Rati Tripathi & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr. II (2016) CPJ 144 (MP), FA

-5-

No.863/2015 (Divisional Rail Manager, Rail Divisional Office, Bhopal Vs Smt. Pratima Agrawal) decided on 14.03.2019 and FA No.1192/2008 (Union of India Vs Smt. Kamta Bhoumiya) FA No. 2172/2008 (Smt. Kamta Bhoumiya Vs Union of India & Anr) decided on 03.01.2020 in support of his contention.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent has supported the impugned order and argued that the District Commission has rightly awarded compensation as the theft had occurred in the reserved coach and the Railways have been negligent and deficient in service since they failed to take measures for safety and security of the passengers travelling in the reserved coach.  Learned counsel therefore argued that the appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3574 OF 2007 (General Manager South Central Railway Vs Jagannath Mohan Shinde) decided on 11 April 2012, South Eastern Railway Vs Ku. Bharti Arora I (2004) CPJ 114 (NC), Union of India (UOI) & Ors Vs Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave & Anr decided on 23 October,2002, Station Superintendent, North Railways Vs Jasmin Mann decided on 15 December 2017 and the decisions of the State Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh in  Northern Railway Vs Balbir Singh decided on 25 September 2014 in support of his contentions.

-6-

8.                On careful observation of the complaint filed by the complainant and the FIR dated 13.09.2014 lodged by her, it appears that though she was allotted reserved berth no.56 in coach S-10, but 13.09.2014 at about 5.50am when the train reached Kalyan Station, she was travelling at berth no.71 which is nearest to the door and washroom as she has to go frequently to the washroom, an unknown person came and sit nearby and snatched her purse and jumped off the train. On the other hand in the complaint filed by her she has stated that she was travelling on berth no.56 allotted to her. It is submitted by her that she was carrying purse/hand bag containing jewelry, mobile, cash, ATM Card, passbook, cheque book and other articles costing Rs.5,68,000/- which was alleged to have been stolen.   We find that either in the FIR or in the complaint, there is no specific mention that the TTE allowed unauthorized passengers in the subject coach. Also, there is no specific averment to the effect that the complainant had approached the on duty railway staff and had reported regarding the same, but no action was taken by them.  Her handbag was snatched by an unknown person when the train stopped at Kalyan railway station.

9.                The alleged accident had happened during morning time and the complainant herself has been negligent and careless about her belongings, and that led to such an accident.  The Railways also challenged the authenticity of the articles contained in the handbag. There is not a single

-7-

document such as bills of various jewelry items and other articles filed by the complainant on record to establish that the handbag contained articles costing Rs.5,68,000/-

10.              Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Jain Vs Union of India decided on 02.07.2013 has clearly held that “As per petitioner’s own case he had been allotted berth no.41 in sleeper coach S-2 and he had voluntarily place attachi on berth no.43. Therefore, the railways cannot be held responsible for the alleged loss of attachi case by way of theft or otherwise.”

In the instant matter, also as per complainant’s own case, she was allotted berth no.56 in coach no.S-10 but at the time of incident she was travelling on berth no.71 in coach no.S-10 which is close to the door and at the stations moving of passengers at the door is frequent as they are going up and down. She herself travelling in an unauthorized manner on berth no.71 without taking permission of the TTE. It is not her case that she chained and locked her luggage beneath the berth. Here she was carrying such a valuable handbag in her hand and moving here and there in the coach which clearly goes to show carelessness and negligence on her part. She ought to have kept the valuable items in her luggage such as briefcase after properly chained & locked the same beneath the berth.  The complainant ought to have taken sufficient safeguard to protect her valuables from any theft more particularly when she was travelling on a berth near the door.

-8-

11.              On careful perusal of record, we find that there is no whisper as to how and in what manner there was negligence on part of the opposite parties-Railways resulting into occurrence of theft. There is no pleading nor evidence to the effect that there was any negligence on part of Railways or its servants in not providing hooks beneath the berth for putting a lock with chain where the complainant can put her luggage or that there were unauthorized persons were travelling in the reserved coach, and were not asked to deboard the train by the railway servants.

12.              Thus, in absence of any pleading or evidence giving any indication of negligence on part of Railways or its servants, only on the ground that the complainant was travelling in reserved coach, it cannot be held the Railways negligent or deficient in service, if the theft has occurred. The complainant has not been able to establish deficiency in service or negligence on part of Railways so as to hold them responsible for theft, which had taken place.

13.              In similar facts and circumstances, 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.”

 

-9-

14.              The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent are distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the present case as in those cases the luggage was chained and locked properly and despite that theft had taken place.

15.              Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion and in recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in our considered view, the District Commission has committed grave error in holding the appellants-railways negligent and deficient in service and in awarding compensation i.e. without any supporting documents to the complainant/respondent. 

16.              In the result, the impugned order is set-aside. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed.

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

                   Presiding Member                             Member