Order No. 21 dt. 22/08/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant along with his family member with a railway pass and Identity Card proceeded to Puri. During the said journey while the wife of the complainant woke up at 4.00 hrs she noticed that her handbag was missing whereby she had valuable articles including railway travel pass, hotel booking papers etc. the complainant informed the said fact to RPF & GRP and lodged a complaint. The complainant after reaching Puri lodged a diary at RPF outpost. But no suitable action was taken on the part of the Railway authorities for which the complainant filed this case praying for compensation of Rs.98,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The o.ps contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the alleged incident happened after crossing Balasore Railway Station which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of East Coast Railway within the state of Orissa. In view of the said fact the o.ps stated that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case. It was further alleged that Railway Administration had not provided any undertaking to the complainant to carry safely the handbag of the complainant’s wife by accepting extra charges such as insuring charges. So there was no responsibility of the Railway Authority to safe carriage of the handbag of the wife of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the o.ps alleged that there was no deficiency in service and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant by availing the railway pass was going to Puri with his family?
- Whether the theft was committed in respect of the handbag of the wife of the complainant during the time of journey?
- Were the o.ps responsible for the said loss?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant being a retired employee while proceeding Puri with his family by availing free pass, during the time of journey the handbag of the wife of the complainant was missing. On the basis of the said fact the complainant lodged complaint to the Railway Authorities including RPF, GRP etc. After their arrival at Puri a diary was lodged. Since the articles were lost during the journey the complainant filed this case for compensation and litigation cost.
The Ld lawyer for the o.ps argued that the bag of the complainant was lost after crossing Balasore, Orissa which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of East Coast Railway, therefore this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. The o.ps did not book the articles of the complainant and therefore railway has no knowledge regarding the carry of the said handbag which contained the valuable articles of the complainant. In order to fortify the submission of the o.ps the Ld Lawyer relied on a decision as decided in revision petition no. 1916 of 2014 wherein it was held that the complainant failed to substantiate his claim that there was any negligence on part of the railway officials in the matter of alleged incident for which the o.p. railway’s officials could be held liable in any manner.
On the basis of the submission of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that while the complainant travelling to Puri after availing free pass and during the said journey it was alleged by the complainant that the handbag of the complainant’s wife was found missing. The said incident took place after crossing Balasore which is admittedly within the territorial jurisdiction of East Coast Railways. It is an admitted fact that the office of the South Eastern Railway is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and thereby on the basis of showing the part cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum thereby the complainant filed this case before this Forum. Therefore we hold since there was part cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum thereby the complainant filed this case before this Forum and accordingly we hold that the case filed by the complainant does not suffer from lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Accord9ingly we hold that the said point in favour of the complainant.
It appears from the materials on record that the luggage was not booked by the complainant therefore as per railways (extent of monetary liability and prescription of percentage charge) Rules, 1990 railway has no liability to pay the damage to the passengers who did not book the articles for carrying those articles with them at the time of journey. It is not possible for the railway to provide security to all the passengers travelling during the journey and also to protect the passengers for keeping the safety of the articles carried by them during the time of their journey. On the basis of the judgment passed by Hon’ble NCDRC in respect of R.P.No.1916 of 2014 we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered.
That the case no.223/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
