By Jayasree Kallat, Member
The petition was filed on 13.07.2009. This petition is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the consumer protection Act. On 15.01.09 the complainant was traveling in the side seat of the ladies compartment on trainNo.6347 Trivandrum Mangalore express. When the train reached Parappanagadi Railway Station at about 5 A.M. a person on the railway platform snatched two chains the complainant was wearing on her neck. Complainant had lost two pieces from the two chains weighing about 28 gms. The complainant sustained a loss of nearly 40,000/-Rupees. Complainant had suffered mental agony also due to the loss of ornaments. Complainant informed the railway police Kozhikode about the incident. The case was registered as No.9/09 which was investigated and referred as undetected. The complainant is alleging negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The chain snatching had taken place because of the failure of the southern railway to provide sufficient protection to the passengers. Hence this petition seeking for compensation.
Opposite party filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party admits that the complainant traveled in the ladies compartment of train No.6347 on 15.01.2009. The loss of the chain when the train reached at parappanangadi station at about 5.A.M is also admitted by opposite party. Opposite party denies the averment contained in Para 3 of the complaint. They are highly exaggerated and contrarary to the real facts of the case. Railway has provided strong doors for the coaches with proper interior latches and locking system. At window portion strong leaf shutters at the outer portion and glass shutter with wooden frame with all safety measure is provided. All these arrangements are made for the safety and security of the traveling public. In the complaint, the complainant herself has admitted that she was sitting at the side seat in the ladies compartment. The windows are supposed to be closed through out the night and a prudent person can not open it before dawn in order to assure security to the passengers and also safeguard their valuables. In this case the complainant has agreed that she was keeping the window opened even at 5 A.M. by neglecting the security measures advised by railways to all passengers. Opposite party is not liable to compensate for the negligent act of the complainant. The complainant being a lady should have taken much care about her ornaments. The area where snatching took place is under the control and jurisdiction of State Home Department and Revenue Department. But no case is filed against these departments. It is the prime responsibility on the part of the person concerned to keep his /her belonging in safe custody while traveling in public vehicles especially in train. The Railways have made elaborate arrangements to beware the passengers against theft and all other type of anti social activities to be occurred inside and outside the trains. This message has been clearly exhibited inside all compartments besides making mike announcement at regular intervals on all platforms. The incident took place only due to the carelessness of the complainant. The damages shown in the complaint are baseless or highly exaggerated and without any reason. Opposite party prays to dismiss this complaint by awarding cost to the opposite party.
Points for consideration- Point No.1.Whether there was any negligence on the part of
Opposite parties?
Point No.2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief.
The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts .A1 to A3 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral or documentary evidence on opposite party’s side.
Point No.1.The case of the complainant is that while she was traveling in the train Trivandrum-Mangalore express on 15.01.2009, when the train reached Parappanangadi station at about 5 A.M. her chains were snatched from the station. She is alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party on this incident. But the contention of the Opposite party is that there was no negligence on the part of the Opposite party. Railway has provided strong doors for the coaches with proper locking system. At window portion strong leaf shutters at the outer portion and glass shutter with wooden frame with all safety measures is provided. These arrangements are made for the safety and security of the traveling public. The passengers are also warned to keep their belongings safely. Railways have made elaborate arrangements to beware the passengers against theft and all other type of antisocial activity inside and outside the train. The message has been clearly exhibited inside all compartments besides making mike announcements at regular intervals on all platforms. In this case the complainant was negligent on taking care of her valuables. In the deposition the complainant has admitted that she was sitting near the window seat and kept the windows opened even at 5 A.M. After going through the case we are of the opinion that if the complainant was more careful this incident would not have happened. Hence the forum can not find any deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
Point No.2. As the forum has found that there is no negligence on the part of Opposite party we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
In the result the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open court this the 9th day of December 2010.
Date of filing : 13.07.2009.
SD/-PRESIDENT D/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Photocopy of FIR report dtd.23.01.09.
A2. Registered Lawyer notice dtd.22.05.09.
A3.Tapal acknowledgement card dtd.25.05.09.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1.Reena(Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
