Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 19-05-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in CC No. 191/2016, whereby the complaint case has been decided in favour of the Complainant.

Case of the Complainant, in short, was that while returning to Howrah by Kalka mail, two trolley bags of the Complainant containing costly garments valued Rs. 25,000/- got stolen from the reserved train compartment.  Necessary complaint lodged with the Police as well as Railway authorities since did not yield any positive result; the complaint case was filed by him.

OP Nos. 1 to 3, in their WV stated that the alleged theft occurred in between Gaya and Koderma Railway station over which these OPs have got no control.  Further case of these OPs was that, on receipt of written complaint from the Complainant, the original copy of FIR was forwarded to the GRP/Gaya for taking necessary action.  Lastly, it was stated by these OPs that as per Sec. 100 of the Railway Act, 1989, Railway Administration cannot be held responsible for the loss of any luggage unless the same is booked under proper receipt.

Decision with reasons

Both sides were heard through their respective Ld. Advocates.  We have also gone through the documents on record.

It appears that Eastern Railways operates the concerned train, i.e., Kalka Mail.  That apart, admittedly, Sri Sudhir Kumar Bodra, HdTE/HWH was the on duty coach TTE of the said train and the Respondent No. 1 lodged FIR with the said TTE on board.  Thus, the complaint case was rightly filed before the Ld. District Forum.

According to the enquiry report, the concerned TTE, Sri Bodra denied entry of any unauthorized person inside the reserved train compartment in question and also claimed that RPF personnel were present all through.  However, we cannot attach any importance to the said enquiry report as the statement of the Respondent No. 1 was not recorded by the enquiry team, nor did any RPF personnel depose before it to vouch for the statement of the concerned TTE. 

It is noteworthy that although FIR was lodged with the concerned TTE, he did not seek any clarification from the on duty RPF personnel, let alone recording the statement of any co-passenger of the said compartment.   

Above all, it is an open secret that unauthorized persons, viz., vendors, ticketless people do roam inside the reserved train compartments freely.  Therefore, notwithstanding the stubborn refusal from the side of the Appellants, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, we find no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the allegation of the Respondent No. 1.

Coming to the issue of protection sought for under Sec. 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, similar issue was raked up by the Appellant Railway Authorities before us in A/418/2016, wherein we observed as under:

“In the matter of  G.M., South Central Railway vs R.V. Kumar And Anr. reported in 2005 CTJ 862 (CP) (NCDRC), the Hon’ble National Commission while dealing with the identical issue has been pleased to observe as under:

‘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, provided, of course, that the passenger himself has taken reasonable care of his personal baggage as expected of a prudent person’.

In this regard, it may not be totally out of the place to mention the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay v. Union of India Ors.,  reported in II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC) : 2004 (3) Supreme 291 wherein the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to observe as under:

‘Railway Administration cannot escape its liability for negligence and deficiency in service in failing to prevent unauthorized persons assaulting passengers in railway compartment and taking away their luggage.’

Further, with regard to the loss in a goods train, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Udho Ram & Sons, pertinently observed as under which is relevant for the facts of the present case:

‘It may be true that any precautions taken may not always be successful against the loss in transit on account of theft, but even so evidence should be offered with respect to the extent of the precautions taken and with respect to what the Railway Protection Police itself did at the place, where the train had to stop. It must be taken to be the duty of the Railway Protection Police to get out of the Guard's van whenever the train stops, be it at the railway platform or at any other place. In fact, the necessity to get down and watch the train when it stops at a place other than a station is greater when the train stops at a station, where at least on the station side there would be some persons in whose presence the miscreants would not dare to tamper with any wagon and any tampering to be done at a station is likely to be on the offside.’

In view of this, the notion of the Appellants that Sec. 100 of the Railways Act exonerates them of all liabilities unless the luggage is booked appears to be completely misplaced.  In my considered opinion, in case belongings of a passenger get misplaced, particularly from a reserved compartment, the Railways must own up full responsibility for the same because during train journey, the responsibility of ensuring safety and security of lives of passengers as also their personal belongings lie with the Railways”. 

We find no reason at all to deviate from our earlier stand in the matter. 

In all, the impugned order is found to be fully in order. 

The Appeal is bereft of any merit.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1 with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Appellants to the Respondent No. 1.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.