Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.C.Chavan, President
This appeal was taken up for hearing on 08/10/2013 pursuant upon remand by the National Commission by order dated 06/09/2013. The parties had been directed to appear before the Commission on 08/10/2013. Respondent however did not remain present on that date. Appeal was therefore listed for hearing today. Even today none appears for the respondent.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the material on record. Appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Solapur allowing consumer complaint no.246/2002. Forum directed the appellant Railways to pay a sum of `1,34,500/- on account of theft of complainant’s ornaments and valuables when the complainant was travelling by the Railway.
Ld.counsel for the appellant points out that the luggage had not been entrusted to the employee of the Railway Administration and, therefore, there was no question of Railway Administration having any responsibility in respect of theft of luggage. He points out that section 100 of the Railways Act which has been ignored by the District Forum clearly lays down that, “A Railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a Railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt there for”. The suit case containing valuables which was stolen was in the custody of the complainant all along and under complainant’s lock and key. Complainant found on reaching home that the ornaments had been stolen. This cannot be attributed to any deficiency in service on the part of the Railways. One can imagine the plight of Railways in meeting such claims of crores of passengers who travel everyday by the Indian Railways, without knowing as to which passenger would be carrying what articles. Therefore, though the Railways ought to take care of safety of passengers and their belongings, saddling Railways with liability of compensating passengers for loss of their belongings noticed after passengers leave Railway precincts would be impractical and injurious to the exchequer. The forum had thus wrongly come to the conclusion that the appellant Railways were responsible for loss of luggage.
We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 12/01/2005. In the result, consumer complaint no.246/2002 is dismissed.
Pronounced on 21st November, 2013.
