DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.218/2019
Sheo Shankar Prasad
S/o Late Shri Rajendra Prasad Vishwakarma,
R/o-22/IA BSNL Type-IV QTRS,
Kali Bari Marg, DIZ Area, Udyan Marg,
P.S Sansad Marg, New Delhi-1100001
….Complainant
Versus
The Chairman,
Railway Board,
Rail Bhavan, Raisin Road,
New Delhi-110016
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 29.07.2019
Date of Order : 26.12.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking compensation of Rs.64,000/- for the value of lost belongings and Rs. 4,00,000/-for suffering immense harassment and mental agony at the hands of the OP the Complainant has also prayed for Rs 15,000/- as legal costs.
- It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant and his wife purchased online tickets from IRCTC for travelling from New Delhi to Patna for to and fro journey in Indian railway for shradh(pindadan) of the departed soul of their parents. It is stated by them that they have duly paid the consideration fixed by Indian Railway.
- It is stated by the OP that the tickets were booked for travelling from Delhi to Patna on 24.09.2016 under PNR 2800247595 in train number 12570 in 3 AC for outward journey from New Delhi and for going from Patna to Mughal Sarai under PNR 6556961129 in train number 12142(Patliputra Lokmanya Tilak express) on 27.09.2016 and for going from Mughalsarai to New Delhi on 29.09.2016 under PNR 6756 849875 in train number 12303 for inward journey along with his wife.
- It is stated by the Complainant that when the train left Buxar station the TTE allowed some unknown persons who were not having authorised tickets to board in the said coach thereby creating a state of chaos in the compartment. It is stated that RPF personnel available in the said coach also did not raise any objection to such unauthorised boarding of these unknown persons.
- It is stated by the Complainant that during this process, the trolley bag containing all belongings and valuables of the Complainant and his wife were stolen from the reserved coach S8 of the train on account of the negligence and connivance of the TTE and RPF who are the employees of the OP. It is stated that the trolley bag contained Rs 14,000/- in cash, 3 new silk bedspreads costing around Rs.6000, some books costing around Rs.2000, 5 sets of new and old clothes of the Complainant and his family costing around Rs.40,000/- and other valuable papers relating to office receipt of pension papers of one retired employee which cannot be valued in terms of money.
- It is stated by the Complainant that he informed the TTE and RPF that his bag is missing from coach however, they did not show any concern and therefore the Complainant had to lodge an FIR at the GRP Mughal Sarai police station. Copy of the FIR is enclosed as Annexure3. It is stated by the Complainant that this incident was reported locally in the Hindi edition of Hindustan newspaper published from Varanasi on 30.09.2016. Copy of the paper cutting is enclosed as Annexure 4.
- It is stated by the Complainant that the OP is contractually obliged to provide safe and secure travel to the Complainant as the Complainant purchased confirmed ticket from the OP for consideration fixed by them and the inability of the OP to provide safe and secure journey to its passengers such as the complainant, is deficiency in service.
- Per contra, the OP, in their reply, has taken the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being bad in law due to misjoinder of parties as the Chairman, Railway Board is not an appropriate party and deserves to be deleted from the array of parties. It is also stated that in view of the decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Sonic Surgical case, this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further stated that the present complaint is without any cause of action and as per Section 100 of the Railway Act, Railway administration is not liable for unbooked luggage.
- It is stated by the OP that the allegation of loss of trolley bag and its contents are false as there is no proof or evidence to show that the Complainant had brought the alleged bag and valuables in the coach. It is stated that in case the Complainant was carrying the alleged valuables in bag, it was entirely at his own risk as they neither entrusted the goods to the conductor nor booked the same with the railway authorities. It is also stated that as per Rule 146 of the Coaching tariff number 24 part one, volume one, Railway cannot be held liable for the loss of any unbooked luggage.
- It is stated that the Complainant himself was negligent by not keeping valuables safely and he cannot claim any loss from the OP. It is stated that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the OP with regard to free baggage allowance and that the OP is not responsible for the services rendered provided free of charge. It is also stated that the Complainants had booked the tickets through IRCTC hence the Complainant is a customer of IRCTC and not of Railways.
- It is also stated that law and order is a subject matter of state and already a case has been registered by the Complainant under section 379 of the IPC at Chandauli UP. It is stated that matter like theft needs long process for establishing the allegations and cannot be dealt under the Consumer Protection Act.
- It is stated by the Complainant that as per investigation of the railways on 29.09.2016 in coach number S8 of Patliputra to Mughal Sarai no unauthorised person was travelling as has been alleged by the Complainant. It is also stated that no complaint has been received by the railways from any other passenger.
- In its rejoinder, the Complainant has mostly contradicted the allegations made by the OP and has reiterated that deficiency in service is a norm of the OP that there have been many instances as such of robberies happening in the railway.
OP was proceeded ex parte by way of order dated 10.10.2019. The Complainant has filed its evidence affidavit as well as written submissions.
This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and arrive at the finding that the preliminary objection relating to territorial jurisdiction raised by the OP does not hold good as the cause of action has partly arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The other objection of the OP that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the OP cannot be sustained as it is the OP who is providing the services and the IRCTC is merely the ticketing arm.
Complainant has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in the case of Union of India vs General Manager, Northern Railway passed in the year 2008, Manju Kumar vs Indian Railways passed in the year 2016. State Commission, West Bengal in Smt. Geeta Hazra vs Station Master in 2014. Hon’ble NCDRC in Indian Railways vs Ancha lGarg in the year 2014. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumatidevi M Dhanwatay vs Union of India in the year 2004. Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh inNorthern Railway vs Balbir Singh in 2014 and Hon’ble NCDRC in GM, South Central Railways vs RV Kumar 2005.
In Sumatidevi M Dhanwatay vs Union of India, 2004 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held "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."
The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radha Ramanathan vs GM, Northern Railway wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC upheld the judgment of the Hon’ble SCDRC which granted compensation to the Complainant in 2019.
The Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in the same matter stated that “From our day to day experience, we know that sometimes it is not possible for us to keep every bill, invoice for each and every article. In this case the respondent/complainant failed to provide any documentary evidence like bills etc. to support her allegations but she filed her own affidavit. Thus, in our view, a passenger travelling by a train is entitled to carry certain baggage or luggage free of costs. There is no question of entrusting such a baggage/luggage to the railway and getting receipt thereof. It is the duty of the railways to see that every passenger travelling by train reaches his destination safe and sound as once railways issues a ticket to a consumer for travelling by train and permits the consumer to carry luggage it has to ensure for the safety of the passengers and also for the safety of his belongings and any shortcoming or inadequacy or imperfection amounts to deficiency in service and therefore it renders the railways liable to pay compensation as loss or injury including the mental injury suffered by him.”
This matter was upheld by the Hon’ble NCDRC and the appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The facts of the present case are covered by the above stated judgment and therefore we are of the view that the OP is deficient in its services by not providing safe travel to its passengers, in this case, the complainant. It is seen from the FIR filed on record that the articles in the FIR are fairly same as enumerated in the complaint though the costing of the lost articles have not been provided in detail. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that justice would be done by directing the OP to compensate the complainant for the loss of his bag which is estimated at Rs.30,000/-. This order has to be complied within two months from the date of the receipt of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the sum till realization.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
