Date of Filing:18.08.2008<br /> Date of Order:07.11.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1802 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Eldred R. Rosario<br /> Flat # 002, Sharavathi A-1 Block<br /> NGHC Koramangala<br /> Viveknagar P.O.<br /> Bangalore 560 047 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. Special IGP - Railways<br /> Maharashtra state<br /> Church Gage, MUMBAI – 400 020<br /> <br /> 2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager<br /> Divisional Office<br /> Bangalore 560 023 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant. <br /> The facts of the case are that complainant was traveling with his family from Bangalore to Mumbai on the 6th day of April, 2004 in Udyan Express train No. 6530. There was a robbery in the said train on 07.04.2004 early morning and complainant lost jewellery and cash worth Rs. 2,00,000/-. He lodged a complaint in Dadar Railway Police Station on 09.04.2004. He was called upon by the Railway Police many times. He made trips to Mumbai, Indore and Pune and railway police have not been able to recover stolen valuables. He submits that they are not responsible in this regard. It is the responsibility of the Railways to see the safety of passengers and their valuables. Therefore, he submitted that he may be compensated for the loss of valuables.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 appeared through advocate and on behalf of opposite party No. 1 Police Sub-inspector, Dadar Railway Police Station, Mumbai appeared and submitted a letter. The opposite party No. 1 has told that they are not necessary party to the present proceedings since the complainant has not prayed relief against opposite party No. 1. In the complaint also, the complainant has clearly stated that opposite party No. 1 is not responsible for the robbery. Opposite party No. 2 filed defence version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. The alleged incident has not occurred within the jurisdiction of the opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 is not a necessary party. Complainant has filed the complaint after lapse of 4 years. There is inordinate delay in filing complaint. Therefore, complaint may be dismissed as barred by time. Admittedly, alleged robbery took place in Mumbai and opposite party No. 2 has no jurisdiction over any of the happening of the Central Railway. Entire cause of action arose in Mumbai limits. The complaint filed against South Western Railway is without jurisdiction.<br /> 3. The matter was heard and looking to the complaint admittedly, the complainant has submitted that at the early morning on 07.04.2004 there was a robbery in the train and he had lodged complaint with Dadar Railway Police station where he got down from the train. The railway police were not able to recover stolen valuables. Police regretted that the offence of theft remains undetected. The complainant submitted that police are not responsible for the robbery. If at all the railway has to be held responsible for the robbery and loss of articles the complainant could have put up the claim against Indian Railways before the Railway Tribunal. The complaint before this forum is not maintainable. The alleged robbery or theft took place in April 2004 and complaint has been filed to this forum on 18.08.2008 after more than 4 years of alleged cause of action. Therefore, the complaint is barred by time. On this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Secondly, this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint because the alleged robbery or theft in railway took place in Dadar – Mumbai within the jurisdiction of the Mumbai District Forum. Therefore, the complainant could have filed complaint at Mumbai. On this ground also complaint is not maintainable. However, the complainant will be at liberty to put up his claim before the Railway Tribunal constituted under the Indian Railways Act and he may get relief there. With this observation the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.<br /> 4. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 5. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />