Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/20/281

RAILWAYS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT KARUNA MISHRA - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2020

 (Arising out of order dated 17.01.2020 passed in C.C.No.34/2016 by District Commission, Katni)

 

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER,

WESTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, JABALPUR.                                                    …          APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

SMT. KARUNA MISHRA.                                                                                      …         RESPONDENT.

 

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                 

                                      O R D E R

04.07.2024

 

           Shri Indrajeet Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                        The opposite party/appellant-Railways has filed this appeal against the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Katni (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.34/2016 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.                

2.                The facts of the case in short are that on 22.03.2015 the complainant was travelling on berth no.56 of coach no. S-7 in train number 18233 (Narmada Express) from Indore to Katni. It is submitted that during journey unauthorized passengers were travelling in the said coach and no security persons were there. It is alleged that at Jabalpur station someone has stolen her green coloured 

-2-

jeans bag wherein a plastic bag containing jewelry and clothes worth Rs.2,52,617/- was kept. Since the train left Jabalpur, she lodged FIR with GRP Katni which was later transferred to Jabalpur.    She therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission, seeking cost of stolen articles Rs.2,52,617/- along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with costs.  

3.                The opposite party in its reply before the District Commission raised objection that the complainant without any notice to the opposite party under Section 80 of CPC and under Section 77 of Railways Act has filed this complaint therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has stated that the incident occurred at Jabalpur, therefore, the District Commission at Katni has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  It is submitted that the Railway administration is not responsible for loss as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 if the luggage is not booked. It is further submitted that as per para no.506.2 of Indian Railway Coaching Tariff Part-I, the passengers themselves are responsible for security of their belongings and the Railways is not responsible for the same.  If the luggage kept by the passengers at their own possession during journey, the Railways cannot be held liable for the same. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission allowing the complaint and directed the opposite party-Railways to pay Rs.16,735/- to the complainant within two months failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. Compensation of

-3-

Rs.2,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded. Hence this appeal by the Railways.

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

6.                Learned counsel for the Railways argued that in the complaint, the complainant has stated that she was travelling from Indore to Katni and incident occurred at Jabalpur Railway Station and she had filed complaint before the District Commission, Katni where no cause of action arose and therefore, the District Commission, Katni has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He argued that the District Commission has not considered this important aspect that under Section 100 of the Railways Act, the Railways cannot be held responsible for unbooked luggage. Except the complainant no other passengers of the said coach made a complaint that unauthorized persons were allowed in the coach to travel. She has also not mentioned about unauthorized passengers in the FIR lodged with GRP Katni. The complainant has 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 the complainant along with her complaint has filed his affidavit and copy of FIR. The complainant though in her complaint has mentioned that unauthorized passengers were travelling in the said coach but in the FIR she did not mention that unauthorized

-4-

passengers were travelling in the said coach. Even if the complainant was travelling, nowhere in her complaint, she has mentioned that she placed her bag with chained and locked beneath the berth. The complainant has not made any allegations against the railway authorities that the concerned TTE allowed unauthorized passengers in the said coach and there were no railway staff of RPF personnel. The complainant has not been able to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-railways. The complainant has alleged that articles worth Rs.2,52,617/- kept in her bag were stolen, but she has not been able to place authentic bills of those articles in order to substantiate her submission.  We find that the District Commission has without any basis allowed the complaint when there was no evidence to substantiate the complainant’s contention. In such circumstances, when the complainant herself was not vigilant in keeping her luggage safe, how can the Railways be held responsible?

8.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in Station Superintendent & Anr Vs Surender Bhola III (2023) CPJ 11 (SC)has held:

“We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way a deficiency in service by the Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held liable.”

 

9.                In such circumstances, when the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service against the railways, therefore, on merits as also in view of the recent pronouncement of Apex Court, we are of a considered view that the

-5-

District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent as the complainant has no case on merits.

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

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

 

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

                     Acting President                       Member