BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1664/2006 against C.C. 85/2005, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad
Between:
Smt. G. Jayaprada
W/o. G. Veeraiah
Age: 57 years
R/o. 246, 1st Phase
Hill Colony, Vanasthalipuram
Hyderabad-500 070. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
1. South Central Railway
Rep. by its General Manager
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
2. Western Railways
Rep. by its General Manager
Vadodara, Gujarat State *** Respondents/
Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Resps: M/s. A. Krishnam Raju
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
The complainant preferred this appeal against the quantum of compensation granted by the Dist. Forum.
The case of the complainant in brief is that she was travelling along with her husband from Secunderabad to Abu Road on 7.10.2004 by Bikaner Express, in coach No. S5. While so, at about 4.00 a.m. a thief had intruded and snatched her gold Mangalasutram weighing 60 gms worth about Rs. 38,000/- while she was asleep and escaped. She woke up immediately and tried to inform the Ticket Collector but he was not available in the compartment. Thereupon she informed the Guard. He did not respond, however, told her to lodge an FIR. Accordingly she gave a report to the Palanpur Railway Station where they got down, and reached Abu Road in another train. This was due to negligence of the railway personnel. She claimed loss of gold chain worth Rs. 38,000/- besides compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with costs.
The railways resisted the case. It alleged that the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. The State Commission, Tamil Nadu as well as Mumbai opined that the loss of personal luggage does not amounts to deficiency in service, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Respondent No. 2 the General Manager, Western Railways questioned the jurisdiction of the Dist. Forum in entertaining the matter. The complainant was put to strict proof of each and every fact alleged in the complaint. If a theft was committed by a co-passenger, the railway administration could not be held responsible and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A5 marked, while the respondents did not file any documents.
The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that there was negligence on the part of railways and therefore awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience besides costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum erred in not awarding compensation for loss of Mangalsutram worth Rs. 38,000/-.
It is an undisputed fact that the appellant along with her husband travelled in Bikaner Express on 7.10.2004 from Secunderabad evidenced under ticket Ex. A1. She alleges that when the train reached Mehsana a thief entered into the compartment and snatched her Mangalasutram weighing 60 gms worth Rs. 38,000/- and ran away. Though she tried to inform the same to the Ticket Collector, he was not available and thereupon she informed the Guard, who in turn directed her to give a report to the police on the next station. Accordingly, she gave a report to the police at Palanpur evidenced under Ex. A2. Basing on the report an FIR Ex. A3 was registered. Later the case was transferred to the Railway Police, Mehasana Railway Police Station, Gujarat by the Superintendent of Police, Western Railway, Vadodara, Gujarat evidenced under Ex. A5. The incident of snatching was not disputed by the railways. They mostly raised the technical pleas of jurisdiction of the Dist. Forum.
The Dist. Forum upheld its jurisdiction relying a series of decisions reported in General Manager, South Central Railway Vs. R.V. Kumar reported in IV (2005) CPJ 57 (NC), The General Manager, Southern Railway Vs. Mrs. A. Shameem reported in I (2004) CPJ 40 (NC), Southern Eastern Railway Vs. Ku. Bharati Arora reported in I (2004) CPJ 114 (NC).
By relying Section 53 & 100 of Railways Act, Section 13 and 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act and Section 2(1(g) of the Consumer Protection Act the National Commission has consistently opined that the Consumer Courts have jurisdiction for loss of goods, luggage, articles while travelling in railways on proving negligence on the part of its employees. It was opined that the railways are responsible to take care and protect the passengers in reserved compartments. Since the law is settled in this aspect, we do not intend to repeat the very same proposition held in those decisions. Suffice to say
Under Rules 4, 14, 16, 17 of Railway Authority clearly cast the responsibility on the TTE who failed to perform his duty which led to the incident of theft. The duty of TTE for sleeper coach reads as under:
· “He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach, guide them to their berths/seats and prevent unauthorised persons from the coach. He shall in particular ensure that persons holding platform tickets, who came to see off or receive passengers do not enter the coach.
· He shall ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move and open them up for passengers as and when required.
· He shall ensure that the end doors of vestibuled trains are kept locked between 22.00 and 6.00 hrs. to prevent outsiders entering the coach
· He shall remain vigilant particularly during night time and ensure that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorised persons do not enter the coach.”
The above mentioned list of duties if not adhered to in the interest of passengers, and if not effectively adhered to and enforced, will remain as paper duties.
The evidence irrefutably indicates that the above rules were not adhered to and we endorse the view of the Dist. Forum in finding that there was negligence on the part of railway administration and liable to reimburse the loss. The Dist. Forum for the reasons not known did not award any amount for the loss of ornament. It has awarded compensation for mental agony. Undoubtedly the complainant was entitled to compensation for the loss of ornament. No doubt filing a bill for Mangalasutram may not be possible. At least the complainant could have filed the value of 60 gms of gold as on the date of incident. It is not known when the Mangalasutram was prepared or purchased. Undoubtedly, there seems to have been some weight loss for having been used. Considering the nature of the ornament lost, we award an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as against claim of Rs. 38,000/-. However, in the light of facts the amount that is awarded in regard to loss of article could be held appropriate. It is modest and reasonable.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part directing the respondent railways to pay Rs. 30,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from 7.10.2004. The order of the Dist. Forum Dt. 1.2.2006 in regard to other relief of awarding of compensation as well as costs is upheld. The complainant is also entitled to costs of Rs. 1,000/- in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
Dt. 23. 01. 2009.
