DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 26th day of April 2014
Present: Smt.Seena.H. President
Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member
Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing : 02/08/2013
CC No.123/2013
V.L.Sabarigireesan,
S/o. V.M.Lakshmanan (Late),
Sreelakshmi,
Vadakkencherry – 678 683
Palakkad Dist. - Complainant
V/s
1.Commandant,
Railway Protection Force (RPF),
Palakkad Divison,
Palakkad
(By Adv.T.R.Rajagopalan)
2.The Commercial Manager,
Railway Division, Palakkad Division,
Palakkad
(By Adv.T.R.Rajagopalan)
3.The Divisional Manager,
Palakkad Division,
Palakkad.
(By Adv.T.R.Rajagopalan)
4.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Railway Police (RP), Olavakkode,
Palakkad – 678 002 - Opposite parties
O R D E R
Order by Smt.K.P.SUMA, MEMBER
Case of the complainant is that he along with his friends had a pilgrimage to Kasi on 26/10/2012 to 6/11/2012. His return journey was from Varanasi Junction on 6/11/2012. He was to board train No.16360 Patna-Cochin Express from Varanasi at 9.15 pm. His reservation coach No. was S7 and his berth was 59 L.B. The train was late by about 5 hrs and he could board the train only on 7/11/2012 at 2 a.m. There was heavy rush and many unreserved passengers boarded to the train. The complainant had 3 bags with him. One suit case, one side bag and a hand bag. On 8/11/2012 early morning he noticed that his hand bag was missing. The complainant alleges that the hand bag contained his mobile, one digital camera, cash and diary. As soon as he reached at Palakkad on 9/11/2012 he reported the theft at Railway Protection Force, Office at Palakkad junction. But the police did not accept his complaint as the sub Inspector was absent. They ask him to come again next day. He went by 4 pm again. But at that time also Sub Inspector was absent and the police told him that there was no meaning in the complaint of the theft and lost things was not traceable and they tried to discourage him. But when the complainant insisted that they just recorded the matter in their register and assured him that they would report and enquire the same on their own way. Since the RPF Police refused the acknowledgement of complaint, he reported the same at Vadakkancheryy Police Station and launched a complaint reporting the theft of the mobile, fearing misuse of his SIM. Since he had no information regarding enquiry from the authorities about the theft he had filed this complaint seeking a compensation of Rs.70,000/- from the opposite parties towards the loss of his mobile, digital camera, cash and mental agony caused by the negligence from the opposite parties in their deficiency of service.
After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed version contending the following: The complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the opposite parties even on the allegation in the complaint there is no deficiency of service. Complaint discloses that the complainant boarded the train from Varanasi at 2.a.m on 7/11/2012 and reached Palakkad on 9/11/2012. It is obvious from the version of the complainant in his statement the complainant noticed that his baggage was found lost at 7 a.m of 8/11/2012. In the normal course, the complainant should have made a complaint to Government Railway Police who are the authorities to take action in respect of theft of other offenses related to passengers or to the coach TTE / Guard of the train. But the complainant admitted that he did not take any initiative to do so accordingly in the first instances. The complainant seems to have approached the Govt.Railway Police Station, Palakkad situated in the First Floor Combined double storeyd building for RPF and GRP at Palakkad in which Govt. Railway Police station is situated in the first floor. The complainant had not preferred any written complaint to the Govt.Railway Police. The complainant had not made Railway Protection Force as party to this complaint where as they are the sole agency in railways to deal such type of offenses. This opposite parties who is not at all legally responsible to deal with any complaints or offences in relation to body and property of passengers has been impleaded unnecessarily as a party in this proceedings. As such no cause of action against this respondent and there is no basis for the amount of damages claimed and it is exorbitant. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed.
Opposite parties 2 & 3 filed detailed version and stated that there is no allegation in the complaint about any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and hence request for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant and opposite parties filed proof affidavits. Ext,A1 to A3 was marked on the part of complainant and Ext.B1 to B4 marked on the part of opposite parties.
Complainant filed an application for impleading S.I. Railway Police, Olavakkode as supplementary opposite party 4. Application was allowed and opposite party 4 appeared and filed version stating that on perusal of the petition register from the date of complaint he could not trace out any complaint with respect to the alleged theft filed by this complainant. He contented that no complaint has been filed by this complainant before the S.I. of police, Railway Police Station, Palakkad.
Point that arise for consideration is
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
- If so, what is the relief entitled to the complainant ?
Issue No.1 & 2
Counsel for the opposite party contented that the complainant had not made any compliant to the Railway Police travelling in that train or to the guard nor did he make any compliant to the Station Master from the next station where the train could have stopped. If he had made any such complaint Railway police, who were travelling in the train could have investigated into the matter to find out the person who could have taken the luggage. As per Rule 719 of Kerala Police Manual Vol.3 it is the duty of Railway police for prevention or detection of any offenses within railway limit as such the complainant cannot impute any deficiency of service on the part of the Railway police force. After reaching Palakkad on 9/11/2012 the complainant submits that he had approached the railway protection force, since the SI was not there, he made a complaint to the Vadakkanchery Police station. Even if the complainant had made a complaint to the RPF at Palakkad they could not do anything since the petitioners luggage has been lost before 8/11/2012 morning in some other stations. As such the complainant cannot attribute any deficiency of service on the part of Railway Protection Force for two reasons – One is that the duty is not to detect the loss of articles, which is within the duties of Govt. Railway Police and secondly the loss has occurred on the previous date itself i.e. on 8/11/2012 in the course of the journey. Ext.B2 is the statement given by the Head Constable on duty and Ext.B3 is the report of the SI of RPF to the effect that no complaint has been launched with the RPF. The complainant had produced acknowledgement receipt of Vadakkanchey police station regarding the loss of his articles and marked as Ext.A2. No other document was produced from the part of the complainant to prove that he had launched a complaint regarding the theft of his article before the opposite parties.
In the light of the above discussion we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
Hence complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of April 2014.
Sd/-
Seena.H
President
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Photocopy of Journey cum reservation ticket
Ext. A2 – Photocopy of receipt issued to the complainant by SI of Police,
Vadakkanchery dated 9/11/12
Ext. A3- Photocopy of receipt No.268200 dated 9/11/12 issued by BSNL to the
complainant
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1 – Certified copy of the acknowledgment for the petition filed by the
complaint dtd.9/11/12
Ext.B2 – Letter given by C.Valsalan to the opposite parties dated 16/8/13
Ext.B3 – Letter given by the Sub Inspector of Police, Railway Police station, to
the opposite parties. Dtd.30/8/2013Ext.B4 – Deposition given by the
complainant before the Asst.Sub Inspector of Police, RPF, Pollachi
dtd.11/9/2013
Ext.B4 – Deposition given by the complainant before the ASI of Police/RPF
Pollachi
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
No cost allowed.
