DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.205/2011
Mr. Pilli Ravi Kumar,
Quarter No. 1195 Sector-IV,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. ….Complainant
Versus
- The Chairman Railway Board,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.
- The General Manager,
Northern Railways, Baroda House,
New Delhi. ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 08.06.2011 Date of Order : 01.10.2018
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Kiran Kaushal
Brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant are:-
- The complainant, Sh. Pilli Ravi Kumar booked an online ticket in 2nd class sleeper to travel from New Delhi to Kochuveli alongwith his wife and two daughters on 05.06.09. The complainant alongwith his family boarded the train on 13.06.09 at New Delhi Railway Station and kept his luggage of a big trolley bag of Samsonite American Traveller and two other bags below the lower berth. He locked them with the steel chain.
- During the course of the journey the complainant in the early morning hours of 14.06.09 noticed that out of three bags, the Samsonite American Traveller bag was not there and the chain which was used to lock the trolley bag was cut into two pieces. The complainant looked for his trolley bag in his coach and coaches around but did not find the bag. As there was no police personnel in the train the complainant immediately rushed to the TTE on duty who was sitting in the next coach and told him about the incident. Thereafter the complainant and TTE together searched all the 2nd class slipper coaches but did not find the bag. The TTE then advised the complainant to get down from the train on the next station i.e. Ballarshah to lodge a complaint. As suggested by the TTE on duty, the complainant alongwith his wife and two daughters got down from the train at Ballarshah at 6.25 a.m. on 14.06.09 to lodge a complaint at Govt. Railway Police. (hereafter termed as GRP Station). A copy of the complainant’s statement as well as the FIR are annexed as Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 respectively.
- As stated by the complainant getting an FIR done was a nightmarish experience for him and his family as they took almost four hours to lodge a complaint at Ballarshah Railway station. Thereafter the complainant alongwith his family boarded another train at 10.30 a.m. to reach Kazipet and from there to Warangal.
- The complainant further averred that the stolen trolley bag which was Samsonite American Traveller bag was worth Rs.2889/- (copy of the purchase bill of the trolley bag is annexed as Annexure-14). The trolley bag contained some gold ornaments weighing approx. 204 grams, digital camera of model Olympus FE330, cash of Rs.10,000/-, land registration documents and certificate of educational qualifications of the complainant and his wife. The complainant was told to mention the valuable of the item only in the statement and the total value of those lost items that were mentioned in the FIR as estimated by GRP, Ballarshah on 14.06.09 was Rs.2,19,000/- ( @ Rs.1000/- per 1 gram of gold, Rs.10,000/- cash and Rs.5,000/- for digital camera). The complainant also mentions that as on the date the value of the gold is Rs.20,000/- per 10 grams.
- The Complainant regarding the stolen gold ornaments mentions that he had kept some of his wife’s gold weighing approx. 186 grams in the State Bank Branch, Bhimavaram for taking loan and took them back after clearing the loan in the month of October, 2008. The copy bank of the receipt is annexed as Annexure -12.
- On 14.06.09, the day of incident of theft, GRP Raipur found the complainant’s trolley bag in the local train at Raipur Railway Station as unclaimed item. They found only documents and some clothes, pen-drive but no valuable items were found in the trolley bag. The complainant intimated about this to GRP Ballarshah who in turn suggested the complainant to contact GRP Wardha since the complaint had been transferred to GRP Wardha. As suggested the complainant intimated the GRP station Wardha about the recovery of trolley bag by Raipur police. GRP Raipur retrained the trolley bag stating that it is required for the investigating purposes. While returning the documents and other items to the complainant GRP police suggested that an application may be moved to transfer the case from GRP Wardha to GRP Nagpur for better investigation. Vide letter dated 25.09.09 GRP Wardha intimated the complainant that investigation of the FIR is still going on.
- The complainant addressed his grievance before the Chairman Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi and the General Manager of Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1 & OP No.2) vide letters dated 18.05.10, 11.10.10, 17.02.11 and 16.05.11. GRP Nagpur vide letter dated 26.08.10 intimated the complainant that GRP Nagpur is not concerned with the subject matter of claim of compensation and the same may kindly be taken up with the concerned authorities in the railway department.
- The complainant alleges that though the area between Bhopal and Nagpur, where theft took place is a theft prone area but no GRP escort was provided for the train in which the complainant was travelling. Apart from this the doors of the compartment were kept open during the night and the passengers who boarded the train without reservation were standing at the door. It was necessary for TTE to ensure the doors of the coaches are locked when the train was on the move. It is further stated by the complainant that the theft occurred due to the dereliction of duty of the railway officials as there was no RPF protection in the train and thereby allowing free access/ unauthorized entry of the passengers into the reservation coaches.
- Aggrieved by the circumstances above the complainant moved to this forum for direction to OP to pay the amount of Rs.4,33,000/- towards loss caused due to the theft of luggage of the complainant as detailed under:-
(a) cost of gold ornaments which weighs 204 grams
Rs.20,000/- per 10 grams the rate as on date
Rs.4,08,000/-
(b) Estimate cost for digital camera Rs.5,000/-
(c) cash kept in the bag Rs.10,000/-
(d) Rs.10,000/- for mental agony Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.4,33,000/-
2. OP resisted the complaint by filing its written statement wherein it states that the complaint under reply is not maintainable in the eyes of law and same is liable to be dismissed as OP-1 has no concern with general day to day functioning of the railways. The general security and law & order is a state subject so the OP is not liable for the same. It is further averred by the OP that the alleged incident did not occur in the area of Northern Railway so both OP-1 and OP-2 are wrongly impleaded as OPs. It is further stated that the railway staff on duty has extended full cooperation to the complainant to get the FIR registered.
2.1 The OP reiterates that the alleged theft occurred at Maharashtra which is in the jurisdiction of Central Railway and not at Delhi therefore, this forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the instant complaint. The OP contends the goods of the complainant are in the custody of the complainant and he has not paid any fee to the railways for those goods and as per the definition of service under section 2 ‘o’ of the Consumer Protection Act “Service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provisions of facilities in connection with Banking Financing, Insurance, Transport, Processing, Supply of Electricity and other energy, based on lodging or both (housing construction), entertainment, amusement or surveying of news or other information but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.
2.3 OP further contends that the railway is not responsible for unbooked luggage. Section 100 of Railway Act 1989 shows that “A Railway Administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, detoriation, or not delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt thereof and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his custody unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or detoriation was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants. Section 97 of Railway Act also states that Railway Administration shall not be responsible for any loss, destruction or damage of any consignment carried at owner’s risk. Hence OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. Complainant filed replication and evidence by way of affidavit along with supporting documents reiterating everything said in the complaint.
4. Affidavit of Shri Sameer Kumar Senior Divisional Commercial Manager in the office of DRM, New Delhi has been filed on behalf of the opposite party.
5. The complainant has filed the Railway Protection Force (RPF), Amendment Act 2003 along with the written arguments. Written arguments of OP have also been filed.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and perusing the records very carefully, it is observed that the complainant booked an online ticket from Delhi to Kochuveli and travelled on 13.06.09 alongwith his family. He kept his luggage, a big trolley bag alongwith two other bags and took due care of locking the luggage with the steel chain to the berth on which he was sleeping. But in the wee hours of the morning he realized the chain of his Samsonite American Traveller trolley bag was cut into two pieces and the bag was missing. He looked around for the bag himself. When he could not locate the bag he looked for police personnel on the train but could not find any bag. Finally he approached TTE and alongwith the TTE they searched for the bag in the 2nd class sleeper coaches but could not find the bag. As suggested by the TTE the complainant got down on the next station alongwith his family and lodged an FIR in Ballarshah police station. FIR was registered at GRP Ballarshah where the estimated value of lost items mentioned was Rs.2,19,000/. The details of the value of lost items are given in the FIR annexed as Annexure-III.
7. The complainant alleges that the area between Bhopal and Nagpur where the theft took place, is a theft prone area but still no GRP scot was provided for the train in which the complainant was travelling. Apart from this the doors of the compartment were kept open during the night and the passengers who boarded the train without reservation were standing at the door.
8. OP resisted the complaint on the grounds that OP-1 has no concern with general day to day functioning of the Railway. The general security and law & order is a State subject so the OP is not liable to pay any compensation. OP alleged that incident did not occur in the area of Northern Railway so both OP-1 and OP-2 are wrongly impleaded as OPs. Another contention of the OP is that the railway is not responsible for un-booked luggage.
9. The preliminary objection raised by the OP is that the alleged theft occurred at Maharashtra which is in the jurisdiction of Central Railway and not at Delhi, therefore this forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the instant complaint. This objection of the OP does not hold ground as the complainant purchased an online ticket and boarded the train from New Delhi which is within the jurisdiction of OPs. The alleged incident took place on the moving train.
10. The OP further contends that the OP No.1 has no concern with general day to day functioning of the Railway. It is a technical objection, at the most can be considered as an irregularity. A person who is not trained in law cannot be non-suited for such technical error.
11. It is next argued by the OP that the general security, law and order is a State subject so the OP is not liable for the same. In this context, it is pertinent to read the Railway Protection Force Amendment Act, 2003. Relevant portion of the same reads as follows:-
“… The RPF in addition to providing safety and security to Railway property, is entrusted with the duties of protecting the passenger & passenger area and the officers authorized can take cognizance of and launch prosecution against offenders as specified in Railway Act. the amendment commenced with effect from 01.07.2013
STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES AND REASONS
1. The problem relating to security of the Rly passengers has increased manifold during the last decade. It is difficult for the State Government to provide adequate security cover to the railways due to number of constraints. It has, therefore, become necessary that the Ministry of Railways should supplement the efforts of the State Governments in ensuring better security to the railway passengers.
2. As of now, the Railway Protection Force is empowered to investigate offences relating to unlawful possession of only the railway property. It is now proposed to enable the Railway Protection Force to also perform these functions in relation to the passengers area and passengers so that the officers authorized by the Central Government can take cognizance of and launch prosecution against offenders in respect of the offences specified in the Railway Act, 1989. It is accordingly, proposed to amend the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957.
3. The bill seeks to achieve the above object.”
Therefore, it is quite evident from the aforesaid amendment that Railway Protection Force is an Armed Force of the Union which is entrusted to provide security to the passenger areas including platforms and trains. The main purpose to amend the Act is to supplement the efforts of the State Govt. to reinforce the security of the passengers areas on Indian Railways. Therefore, the contention of the OP that general security, law & order is a State subject does not hold merit.
12. There is no dispute of the alleged theft and the due care taken by the complainant of his luggage but the complainant has failed to establish the contents of his trolley bag and specially the amount of gold being carried. Though he has attached the receipt of the SBI Bank which states that he had sought loan against 184 grams of gold on 16/01/17 but in his FIR dated 14/06/09 the complainant states that he was carrying 204 grams of gold alongwith him. He has not stated any specific reason as to why was gold that was in his possession was being carried to his home town during vacations after two years.
13. The complainant has also alleged that the area where the theft took place is theft prone area where number of FIRs have been registered. Despite knowing this fact there was no RPF personnel on the train when the complainant was travelling. The Railway Administration inspite of the prior knowledge had not made any efforts or devised measures to curb lawlessness indulged in by the ticketless travelers. Apart from this, doors of the compartment were kept open during the night and the passengers who boarded the train without reservation were standing at the door. It was necessary for TTE to ensure that the doors of vestibule were closed specially at night.
14. In S/W Railways V/s Pinki Gupta 2008 CPJ (CP) SGTC, similar view has been taken, in which case the facts were almost identical. Certain observations made in this case were reproduced by the District Forum and are as under:-
“Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that passengers possessing unreserved tickets, sales persons and other strangers casually sit and travel in reserved compartments and the railway staff does not seriously object to this. This poses a risk not only to the passengers traveling the reserved compartments but also to their luggage. For having collected reservation fee, the railway department is duty bound to provide sufficient safety to the passengers traveling in reserved compartments. The railway department should provide one guard at each door of the reserved compartment round the cloak and take all safety measures. We hope the railway department will take immediate steps in this regard in the interest of the public.”
15. Therefore, this Forum is of the opinion that the theft occurred due to dereliction of the duty of the railway officers, hence OP is found to be deficient in service. Similar view was taken in S/W Railway Vs. Pinki Gupta 2008 CPJ (CP).
16. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed with the direction to the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of estimated loss occurred because of deficiency in service alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Complainant is also awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment undergone by the complainant. Entire amount awarded be paid within 2 months of receipt of copy of this order.
17. Failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of the filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 01.10.18.
