Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 29-09-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in C.C. No. 124/2016, whereof the complaint has been allowed.

The long and short of Complainants’ case is that, while returning from Gujarat by Shalimar Super Fast AC Express, they lost their valuables as unidentified miscreant(s), taking undue advantage of the security lapses of the OP Railway, escaped with their handbag where valuables like mobile phone, cash, gold ornaments, voter ID Card etc. were kept at the dead of night in between Jharsugda and Chakradharpur on 05-11-2015.  Although necessary FIR was lodged with the concerned Police authority and OP Railway was apprised of the matter, none of them took any positive step to brought the perpetrator(s) of such crime to justice, hence the complaint.

OP Railways, however, denied all the material allegation of the complaint.  Counter case of the OP is that the Complainants themselves were confused about the exact location of alleged theft since it was mentioned that the incident occurred in between Jharsugda and Chakradharpur.  Since they could not identify the exact location, the investigation agency found it difficult to undertake exact investigation.  The OPs further wondered how the miscreant could snatch bangles from the hand of the Complainant No. 1 without any hue and cry in the compartment.  They further argued that the Complainants did not hire the services of the Railways for the safety and security of their valuables.  Further case of the OP Railway is that, as per Sec. 100 of the Indian Railways Act, the Railways is not at all liable for the alleged matter since the Railway never allowed the Complainants to carry the alleged articles with them nor any receipt has been issued to them in this regard and as such, the entire contention made in the said application is based upon the ipse-dixit facts which have got no merit in the eye of law.  Lastly, it is stated that the Complainants lodged an FIR before the GRPs, Shalimar which was subsequently transferred to GRPs, Jharsuguda and the said case is still under investigation.  Accordingly, the OP Railway prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

We have heard the submission made by the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the material on record. 

It appears from the petition of complaint and other material on record that the alleged incident of theft occurred in the dead of night.  Quite predictably, the Respondents, both of whom are elderly people, were asleep at that time.  Therefore, it was futile for them to pinpoint the exact location of alleged theft.  The objection, as raised by the Appellants in this regard, appears to be totally baseless.

It appears from the complaint lodged by the Respondent No. 2 with SHO, Jharsuguda GRP dated 05-11-2015 that the complainant alleged that when the train arrived at Jharsuguda station, he noticed that the white coloured hand bag of his wife went missing.  It was further stated that all valuables, including the bangles, were kept inside the said hand bag.  In view of this, we are at a loss, from where the Appellants got information that the bangles of the Respondent No. 1 were snatched from her hand.  This imagination of the Appellants, as articulated in their WV, thus also appear to be totally baseless.

It is commonly seen that the Railways invariably take shelter under Sec. 100 of the Indian Railways Act whenever disputes of this nature crops up against the Railways.  The Hon’ble National Commission in a catena of cases thrashed such argument of the Railways contending inter alia that Sec. 100 of the Indian Railways Act is divided into two parts. One part deals with luggage booked by the passengers and other part deals with luggage which is carried out by the passengers in his charge. 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. 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 [G.M., South Central Railway vs R.V. Kumar & Anr., reported in IV (2005) CPJ 57 NC relied upon].

In the case in hand, the District Forum was of opinion that there was negligence on the part of Railways or on the part of its servants. In fact, if we put under scanner the conduct of Railway personnel in proper perspective, we find no good reason to disbelieve the allegation of the Respondents. 

It is an open secret that RPF personnel and TTE do not remain at their toes throughout the night to prevent entry of intruders/unauthorized persons inside the reserved compartments whenever the train halts at any station during night journey.  Since the Respondents lodged complaint at the Jharsuguda GRP itself, if the concerned police authority had due inclination, it was not at all difficult for them to find out the veracity of the allegation of the Respondent No. 2 by interrogating his co-passengers.  Further, since nowadays contact nos. of passengers are given in the booking slips itself, the Appellant Railway could also contact some of the co-passengers of the Respondents to satisfy themselves about the genuineness of the allegation of the Respondents.  There was no need for them to wait for the outcome of the police investigation.  Significantly, the complaint was lodged in the year 2015 and till now, the result of such investigation is not known to anybody.  In any case, it is the settled position of law that pendency of criminal case/investigation is no bar to adjudicate a consumer dispute. 

In view of this, the findings of the Ld. District Forum cannot be faltered with in any manner whatsoever; rather, the same appears to be very much reasonable.  Therefore, we refrain from interfering with the same.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondents with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Appellant Railways to the Respondents.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.