CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/73/2019
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Smt. Deepika Chavda
W/o Prem Chavda,
R/o H. No. 16, Honey Park Road,
Adajan, Surat,
Tehsil & District Surat, Gujrat. …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
The Chairman,
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
Rail Mantralaya, New Delhi-110055.
General Manager, Western Division,
Annex Building, Ground Floor,
Western Railway HQ, Churchgate,
Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Station in-Charge, Railway Station,
Varachha, Surat, Gujrat-395003. …..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma
Mr. R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint has been filed by Smt. Deepika Chavda (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended inter-alia pleading therein that she boarded train no. 12951, Mumbai Rajdhani on 07.08.2014 seat no. 50 of III AC. During her journey she slept at 9:30 P.M. and kept her suitcase near her seat. On waking up in the morning she found her purse missing in which were complainant’s ID card, cash of Rs.50,000/-, gold mangalsutra of 10-15 gm. and locker key. She suffered loss of Rs.1,10,000/- in this theft. Information regarding theft was lodged with TC. The theft took place near Kota Railway Station at midnight and information was given to Kota Railway Police. It is the responsibility of the railways to see that passenger reaches the destination safely. Reliance is placed on judgment titled Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay vs. Union of India Ors. Reported in II(2004) CPJ 27 (SC):2004(3) Supreme Court 291in support of the plea that railway administration is responsible to see that unauthorised persons do not enter the railway compartment. Direction is sought to the railways to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- on account of financial loss, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the complaint.
2. We have heard the complainant on territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to proceed with the matter.
3. Reference may be made to judgment of our State Commission in Vidya Bhushan Rawat vs. Union of India & Anr. complaint no. 110/2018 wherein complaint was filed before the State Commission against Railway Board and Northern Railways alleging deficiency in service in not providing sufficient protection to the complainant who was travelling from Delhi to Deoria by Amarpali Express AC-2 Tier leading to theft of his belongings, loss of laptop and other valuable documents. After hearing the complainant on its territorial jurisdiction, our State Commission vide its order dated 05.05.2018 observed that the mere facts that the OPs are stationed at Delhi would not confer jurisdiction on Delhi State Commission and that it would depend on the place where the cause of action arose. Reliance was placed on the judgments of National Commission in Melanie Das vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in I(2014) CPJ 302(NC) wherein National Commission observed that:
"Mere existence of branch office of the Company would not ipso facts be determinative of territorial jurisdiction of State Commission. Cause of action also must arise at that place."
Reliance was further placed on judgment of State Commission Chhattisgarh in the matter of Mahendra Travels vs. K. Giri Babu III (2013) CPJ 158(Chhatt) in which it was held that:
"Ticket purchased for travelling from Jagdalpur to Bhilai Power House. Bag was found missing in Durg District . Cause of action would be deemed to have arisen at Durg. Fora at Durg has jurisdiction to hear the complaint."
Having regard to the law held above, this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint as theft took place at Kota and no part of cause of action arose at Delhi. Merely because Railway Board has its office at Delhi, the same would not confer jurisdiction on this Forum.
- The question of territorial jurisdiction is settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40. In the said judgment it was held that amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting. It was observed that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action arises.
5. Reference may also be made to decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No 1100/2011 titled as Rajan Kapoor Vs Estate Officer, Huda decided on 04.11.2011 wherein District Forum Panchkula allowed the complaint. In appeal the State Commission found that District Forum Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction following Sonic Surgical (supra). Order of State Commission directing return of complaint for being presented to District Forum Ambala was maintained by the National Commission while observing that simply because Head Office of HUDA was in Panchkula , Panchkula District Forum did not have jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen at Panchkula.
- No part of cause of action is shown have accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum. The complaint is returned with liberty to file the same in the forum having appropriate jurisdiction after retaining a copy of the same. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced thisDay of2019.
