1.      The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby the petitioner/complainant seeks to assail the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in FA/15/596. By the impugned order, the State Commission has set aside the order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) in C.C./15/22 and dismissed the complaint.

2.      Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner /complainant, Smt. Nisha Jaiswal, filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties alleging that they have failed to take any action to restore the items stolen from the purse of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that she and her nephew were travelling from Chhapra to Durg on 11.12.2014 in Gondiya Express Train no. 15231 in Bogie no. S-3 and berth No. 31 and 32 at the time when the incident of theft occurred at Vindhyachal station. The nephew accompanying the complainant attempted to catch hold of the thief but in vain.  According to the complainant, the stolen purse contained the following items: - two gold chains, two pairs of earrings, cash worth Rs. 2,000/-, keys and tickets.   The husband of the complainant filed a written complaint with the in-charge Railway police (G.R.P.), Durg which was later transferred to the GRP Vindyachal UP where the incident had occurred . The value of the stolen goods was said to be Rs. 95,000/- but the officer of the GRP Durg has stated the value of the stolen items to be Rs. 70,000/- in the FIR. The matter was brought to the attention of the concerned authorities on the very next day after the incident but the opposite parties failed to take any action for four months. Consequently, a legal notice dated 21.04.2015  was served upon  the opposite party No. 1 and 2 for the return of items stolen or the current value of the items Rs. 95,000/-. Reply to the said notice was sent to the complainant but the complainant did not find the reply satisfactory. Consequently, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum.

3.      On being served with the notice of the complaint, the opposite parties filed their written statements denying the allegations made in the complaint. Opposite party No.2 took the specific plea that any claim against the railways can be initiated only after the expiry of two months from the date of serving notice to the general manager, which has not been followed in the present case.  Hence, the complaint needs to be dismissed.

4.      The District Forum vide order dated 01.10.2015, held O.P. No. 2/Respondent no.1 liable and ordered as follows:-

“18. Therefore, on the basis of complete investigation we allow the complaint submitted by the complainant and hereby direct that opposite party no. 2 will pay the below mentioned amount to the complainant within a duration of one month from the order date:-

        (a)Opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 95,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand only) to the complainant.

(b) Opposite party no.2, in condition of not making the payment above said amount to the complainant within the determined period then opposite party no.2 will be responsible to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount to the complainant.

(c)  Opposite party no.2, will pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for mental indemnity to the complainant.

        (d) Opposite party no. 2 will pay Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) for litigation charges to the complainant”.

5.      Being aggrieved by the above mentioned order, the opposite parties preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission vide order dated 13.07.2016, relying on Section 100 of the Railways Act 1989,  held that the opposite parties cannot be held liable for the loss of any personal luggage unless the same was booked with the railway department and the loss/damage/non delivery occurred on account of negligence or misconduct of the railway officials/department. Accordingly, the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.

6.      Aggrieved by the above mentioned order, the complainant/petitioner herein has approached this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

7.      The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be sustained in the eyes of law because the State Commission has inadvertently overlooked the fact that the petitioner was travelling in a reserved compartment, S-3 and the State Commission wrongly  held that the complainant was travelling in a general compartment and therefore,  it is not possible for railway administration/ TTE  to prevent the entry of miscreants in the train. The counsel further submitted that the State Commission erroneously observed that the railway administration cannot be held liable for any loss of goods for the passenger on account of theft. The learned counsel submitted that the State Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that there is no dispute concerning the theft and proper intimation was given and FIR was lodged without delay.

8.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and examined the record.

9.      In the complaint, the petitioner stated that she was carrying gold chains, earring sets , cash etc. worth around Rs.95,000/- in her purse, although the FIR records the value of goods stolen as Rs.70,000/-. Apart from the averments made in the complaint, there is nothing on record to prove the contents of the purse of the petitioner. In the absence of any proof to that effect, we are unable to conclude that the petitioner’s purse contained the stated valuables.  

10.    Even assuming that the averments of the petitioner regarding the stolen property are true, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for deficient service on the part of the respondents. If the petitioner was travelling with valuables like gold, cash etc. in a public transport mode, she should have taken all reasonable care and precaution to prevent any misfortune event as what occurred in the present case. The State Commission has rightly exonerated the respondents herein when the petitioner, by her own conduct, exposed herself to such vulnerability.

11.    It is also important to note that the incident had occurred at Vindhyachal, Railway Station and the nephew of the complainant, who was accompanying her also ran behind the thief with the intention to catch him, but no complaint was lodged by the complainant or her nephew either with the GRP Vindhyachal or with the Station Master of Vindhyachal Station or with TTE or any authority available at Vindhyachal Station.  The complainant chose to lodge complaint with the GRP, Durg Station when the complainant’s journey ended.  Each GRP Station has its own territorial jurisdiction.  Had the FIR been lodged at GRP Vindhyachal, they would have investigated the matter to catch the culprits.  This way, there has been a delay in lodging the FIR with the Railway Police even though the complainant had the opportunity of lodging the same at Vindhyachal Station.  Thus, complainant was not only careless in safe guarding her purse, her carelessness is also evident in not filing the timely FIR with right GRP Station.

12.    In our opinion, the State Commission has rightly placed reliance on Section 100 of the Railway Act 1989, which holds the railway administration liable for loss or damage of the goods booked with the railway department provided the loss or damage occurs on account of any omission or misconduct on the part of the railways personnel. This section reads as follows:-

“100.  Responsibility as carrier of luggage.  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 therefor and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants.”

13. In the present case, the goods were not booked with the railway department but the petitioner chose to carry the purse with her at her own risk. The petitioner has failed to establish that the loss sustained was on account of deficient services rendered by the respondents.

14.    In view of the above discussion, we find no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which calls for any interference from this Commission.      Accordingly, revision petition No.2662 of 2016 is dismissed in limine.