In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad

Berhampore, Murshidabad.

                                                        Case No. CC/117 /2015

Date of filing: 25/08/2015.                                                                         Date of Final Order: 30/03/2017

Adtya Kumar Saha, S/O- Lt. Sudhir Kumar Saha

Vill.- Jahadannanpur,P.O.- Bethudahari,

P.S.- Nakashipara,Dist- Nadia,            ……………………………...   Complainant     

                                                          - Vs-

1). Station Master, 

Berhampore Court Station,

 P.O.& P.S.- Berhampore, Dist.- Murshidabad.

2). Officer– in- Charge, R.P.F. Berhampore Court Station.

 P.O.& P.S.- Berhampore, Dist.- Murshidabad

 3). Divisional Railway Manager,

Eastern Railway, D.R.M Office at Sealdah.

4).Assistant Security Commissioner,

 R.P.F Eastern Railway at Ranaghat, Dist.- Nadia....…………….………………….  Opposite Party

                                            Before:      Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.           

                                                               Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

FINAL ORDER

Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.

                 The case of the complainant is that he  booked four bags of Chappal costing Rs.58,480.00 from Bethuadahari to Lalgola vide luggage ticket No. 292716 dated 27.09.2014 as he used to supply the chappals to various shops at Lalgola market for his livelihood. He has a monthly vendor ticket and he boarded to Lalgola passenger Train vide No.53151 up in Luggage van when the said train reached at Berhampore Station some RPF staffs with officer Biman Garai detrained the complainant from Luggage van without four bags of Chappal inspite of repeated request of the complainant. OP No.2 ensured the complainant that his luggage should be returned by the Railway authority. Thereafter the OP No.2 and his subordinate slapped the complainant and put the complainant in the lock up and demanded Rs.700/-. The son of the complainant reached at Berhampore Court Station and paid the said amount to Op No.2 and he released the complainant with proper receipt. Complainant and his son did not get the four bags of Chappal from Berhampore to Lalgola and they enquired the railways staffs regarding the lost four bags then he lodged a complaint before RPF Berhampore vide GDE No. 1153/2014 dated 28.9.2014 and another complaint before the OP No.3. A long period has elapsed but OP did not take any steps to return back the said bags of chap pal as a result he suffered loss due to negligence of the OP No.1&2.

 OP filed written version and assailed that on 27.09.2014 three persons including this complainant were travelling unauthorized in R/SLR No. ER-09712 of train No.53151 Up Lalgola Passenger as the said coach earmarked for luggage so they were arrested by the RPF and were detained on Plat Form No.1 for further interrogation and legal action. During interrogation they did not give any satisfactory reply in support of their illegal journey on SLR Coach. Due to their unauthorized travelling in SLR Coach a case No.56/14 dated 27.09.2014 U/S-156 of Railway Act was registered against the said three persons including the complainant at Berhampore Court Station RPF post and they were released on bail bond of Rs.700/- each as per provision of law with a direction to appear before Ld. CJM and subsequently surrendered before Ld. CJM and pleaded guilty and paid fine of Rs.750/-. The complainant was travelling in the said SLR Coach without any bags of chappal as alleged and they could not show any valid ticket or document for travelling in SLR coach at the time of personal search. In accordance with the complaint of the complainant an enquiry was made by IG- Cum (Sc/RPF Eastern Railway &DRM Sealdah) and it was proved that the allegation is false & baseless. As the Indian Railway has separate Forum for damage claim or compensation so the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 In the evidence on affidavit of the complainant he supported the complaint petition and denied that on 27.9.2014 three persons including this complainant were travelling unauthorized in R/SLR No. ER 09712 of train No.53151 up Lalgola Passenger and during interrogation he did not give any satisfactory reply in support of their illegal journey and also denied of releasing on bail bond before Ld. CJM, Berhampore on 21.10.2014.

      Argument as advanced by the agent of the parties heard in full.

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1).Whether the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4). whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

             In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

    From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant herein is the consumer of the Opposite Party as he was travelling in the train run by the OP being a valid ticket holder and cause of action took place at Berhampore during the journey at train so the OP is responsible for any loss of the complainant.

(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

        The cause of action took place at Berhampore and the address of the OP No.1 &2 are in Murshidabad district so this Forum has territorial jurisdiction. The complaint valued Rs.58,480/-& Rs.10,000/- for loss in business and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony & harassment ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

 (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

        It appears from the case record and the documents as produced by the complainant  being a supplier of chappal in the market of Lalgola used to avail Lalgola Passenger Train from Bethuadahari having monthly vendor ticket, he also possess the Carbon copy of Luggage ticket of Chappal issued by the Booking Clerk Bethuadahari E.Rly dated 27.09.2014. The monthly ticket in the name of Mr.A.K.Saha issued to the complainant also stated that content of Chappal. The complainant by filing evidence on affidavit assailed that he booked four hand baggage Chappal cost amounting to Rs.58,480/- from Bethuadahari to Lalgola vide luggage Ticket No.292716 dated 27.09.2014 he also possessed Monthly Vendor Ticket vide No.7203-7368 and then he boarded the Lalgola Passenger vide train No.53151 Up in luggage van due to non availability of  Vendor compartment. He further assailed that the Train No.53151 UP has no SLR Van only Luggage van is attached with the said train and when the said train arrived at Berhampore Court Station then the RPF staffs with their officer forcibly detrained this complainant without four hand bags of Chappal inspite of repeated request of the complainant to unload the luggage but the OP No.2 ensured this complainant that his luggage should be returned by the Railway authority and he was physically assaulted by the OP No.2 and put him in the lock up and demanded Rs.700/- and released him after getting the desired amount without proper receipt. After the incidence the complainant and his son searched the lost luggage but when they did not get the booked article then he lodged complaints before RPF at Berhampore vide GDE No.1153/2014 dated 28.09.2014 and another complaint before the OP No.3. But his complaints being unaddressed for a long period then he getting no alternative filed the instant complaint before this Forum for Redressal.

          During the period of cross examination on dock the complainant deposed that he availed the train at Bethuadahari along with four bags of Chappal weighing 160 kg. He cannot say the Coach No. but he got down at Berhampore Court Station and the bags were in his custody at train. He booked parcel with Rly from Bethuadahari to Lalgola Station and he filed the document in relating to that Parcel. He did not know whether he was travelling in SLR coach.

     There is no other evidence to rebut the evidence deposed by the complainant so we cannot disbelief the case of the complainant.   

     The OP in their written version stated and argued during the argument that the complainant including other three persons were travelling unauthorized in R/SLR No.ER-09712 of train No.53151 UP Lalgola Passenger Train as the said coach is earmarked for luggage and they were arrested by RPF/Post/BPC and detained in the PF No.1 for further interrogation and legal action. And due their unauthorized travelling in SLR coach a case being no.56/2014 dated 27/09/2014, U/S-156 of the Rly Act was registered against the said three persons including the complainant and they were released on bail by bail bond of Rs.700/- subject to appearance before the Ld.CJM, Berhampore, Murshidabad and on 21/10/2014 the accused persons surrendered and pleaded guilty and paid the imposed fine amounting to Rs.750/-. The OP denied the possession of luggage and assailed that the complainant failed to produce valid ticket or documents in respect of journey.

             After perusing the documents and averments of the versions of the parties we are on the opinion that the complainant was travelling with valid ticket with four hand baggage of chappal with valid booked ticket and he was detrained by the OP No.2 forcibly without his bags as a result he lost his article and OP took no measure to recover his lost article after getting complaint but the OP always tried to evade their liability regarding the lost of the article of the complainant. On the other hand they tried to implicate the complainant and others by starting a case under the provision of Rly Act but failed to seize the article carried by the passenger. If the OP took appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of Rly Act then the Complainant could get his luggage as seized articles by following procedure as envisaged in the said Act. 

           The Complainant filed a decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Union of India & 2 ors Vs. Ranjan Kumar the Hon’ble Commission referred Sec.100 of Railway act,1989; “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 therefore 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”. In the concluding part of the of the final order it is stated that the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases where the complainants suffer on account of negligence of the state employee would equally apply in a case where he suffers on account of the misconduct such as theft or misrepresentation. Therefore, the petitioners, in our view, would be liable to reimburse the complainants/respondents for the loss suffered by him on account of the theft committed by a railway employee. Taking a contrary view, will result in a situation where a consumer is left to identify the employee irresponsible for the loss sustained by him and then locate and sue him for compensating him for the loss sustained by him. It may not always be possible to identify the employee or locate him even if it is established that the loss to the consumer took place on account of the misconduct of employee of the service provider and even if such an employee is identified and located, it may not be possible for the consumer to recover adequate compensation from him. The Consumer Protection Act, being a social Welfare Legislation, the complainant in our view, cannot be placed in such a difficult position. In our view, in such a case, it will be for the service provider to compensate him and then seek to recover the amount which it pays to the consumer, from the employee due to whose misconduct the consumer suffered a loss.

           To substantiate the loss the complainant filed the Xerox copy of purchase receipt of the article that carrying on the date of incidence.       

             From the above discussion we may safely conclude that the complainant is entitled to get a sum a sum of Rs.58,480.00 alongwith interest since 27.09.2014 and litigation cost from the OP.

        4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

          The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant proved his case, so the Opposite Party could not avoid his responsibility of paying the claim of the complainant including interest thereon as ascertained by this Forum.

ORDER

Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.117/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No. 1&2 with a litigation cost of Rs.4000/-.

             The Opposite party No. 1&2 are directed jointly and/or severally to pay a sum of Rs.58,480/- to this complainant  including interest @8% since 27.09.2014 till the payment within 45 days from the date of final order.

            No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant for harassment and mental agony.

            At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay fine @Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

            Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.

           Dictated and corrected by me.