The complainant/respondent boarded train no. 2925 from Ratlam to New Delhi against a reserved ticket and occupied a birth in a IInd A.C. Coach. The complainant kept his suitcase below the lower birth, securing the same by an iron chain with a lock, while sleeping on the birth assigned to him. The suitcase was stolen between Ujjain and Bina, by cutting the chain, which the complainant had used. The theft was discovered by the complainant at Lalitpur Railway Station. According to the complainant, the theft happened since neither the T.T.E. nor the conductor of the coach closed the door of the coach when the train was on the move and on account of the door having been left open, some unauthorized persons entered the compartment and committed theft of his suitcase by cutting the iron chain. It was further alleged in the complaint that the conductor of the coach was not even present in the coach when this incident happened. At Lalitpur, he met the T.T.E./conductor and made a written complaint to him. No action however, was taken on his complaint. Alleging negligence on the part of railway officials, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. 2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioners which admitted that the complainant was travelling in the above referred train as alleged by him. They took a preliminary objection that the complaint was barred by Section 13 & 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. It was further stated that the suit case could not have been stolen by cutting the chain since any attempt to cut the chain would have woken up the complainant considering the calm atmosphere in an A.C. compartment. The petitioner relied upon Section 100 of the Railways Act to deny their liability to compensate the complainant. 3. Vide its order dated 10.01.2014, the District Forum directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as the cost of litigation. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commision by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 01.01.2015, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Being still dissatisfied, they are before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 5. Section 13, 15 & 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 reads as under: 13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal.--(l) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act- (a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter-VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for- (i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway; (ii) compensation payable under section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and (b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway. 1[(1A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of section 12A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claim for compensation now payable by the railway administration under section 124A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder ] (2) The provisions of the 2[Railways Act 1989 (24 of 1989)1 and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act. 15. Bar of jurisdiction;--On and from the appointed day no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in 3[sub-sessions (1) and (1A) of section 13. 28. Act to have overriding effect,--The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. It would thus be seen that the jurisdiction of a court or an authority other than the Railway Claims Tribunal would be barred only in the matters in which the said tribunal would have jurisdiction in terms of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. A perusal of Section 13 as extracted hereinabove would show that the said tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant compensation to a passenger who has lost the luggage being carried by him with him on account of the negligence of a railway employee. The jurisdiction of the tribunal is restricted to the goods or animals entrusted to the railway administration for carriage and compensation payable under Section 82A & 124A of the railways Act. Though the tribunals would also have power to award compensation on account of an untoward incident in terms of Section 124A of the Railways Act, the compensation on account of loss of the carriage being carried by a passenger with him does not come under the jurisdiction of the Railways Claims Tribunal. Consequently, the jurisdiction of courts and other authorities would not be barred in respect of such a claim. 6. As regards Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 on which reliance is placed by the petitioner reads as under: “Responsibility as carrier of luggage – A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration of 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”. It would thus be seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways on any of its employees. 7. Coming to the facts of this case, as noted earlier, according to the complainant, the doors of the compartment were not locked in the night when the train was on the move, as a result of which the unauthorized persons were able to enter the compartment. No evidence of the said door having actually been closed and having been kept closed except at the railway stations where the train had scheduled stops has been pointed out to me. This is also the case of the complainant that neither the T.T.E. nor the coach conductor were present in the coach and as a result, the miscreants were able to remove his suitcase after cutting the iron chain. Again, no evidence of the coach and T.T.E. having remained present in the coach throughout the journey beween Ujjain and Bina, has been brought to my notice. 8. In my opinion, had the T.T.E. and/or coach conductor been present throughout and not sleeping, he would have certainly noticed the miscreants cutting the chain and leaving the compartment with the suitcase of the complainant. The very fact that the cutting of the chain and the theft of the suitcase was not noticed either by the T.T.E. or by the coach conductor clearly indicates that either they were not present in the coach as is alleged by the complainant or they were sleeping somewhere in the coach instead of taking rounds of the coach moving from one end to the other end. It would be pertinent to note here that this was the case of the petitioner that in fact no theft had taken place and a false report of theft was made by the complainant. This is also not the case of the petitioners in the reply filed before the District Forum that the complainant had not secured his suitcase using an iron chain and lock for the purpose as was alleged by him. Therefore, the case set out by the complainant remained practically unrebutted. 9. Since the theft of the suitcase happened due to negligence on the part of the railway employees, the petitioners are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained by him. The orders passed by the fora below therefore, do not call for any interference of this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. | 
