Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/316/2017

U K Patel - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	316 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	06.04.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	05.09.2017

 

 

 

 

U K Patel, H.No.1192, Sector 28/B, Chandigarh UT       

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  The Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), Railway Station, Ambala Cantt., Ambala (Haryana) 133001

2]  The Station Master, Railway Station, Nizamuddin, Humayun’s Tomb, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi, Delhi 120013.

3]  The Station Master, Chandigarh Railway Station, Mouli Jagran, Chandigarh 160102

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

                                MRS. PRITI MALHOTRA       MEMBER

         SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

           

 

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

 Sh.Sunil K.Shore, Adv. for OPs

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

          The facts in issue briefly are that the complainant reached at Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi for boarding the MP Sampark Kranti Train to Jabalpur on 28.3.2015.  It is averred that while boarding Hazrat Nizamuddin on 28.3.2015, the mobile phone of the complainant was stolen at Platform and on reaching Jabalpur, the matter was reported to the Railway Police and accordingly FIR was lodged at Jabalapur, but the case was later transferred to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, Delhi (Ann.P-8 to P-10).  It is also averred that thereafter the complainant visited the Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station twice and was also in touch to know the outcome of his complaint, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed for claim of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of mobile phone along with compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental harassment etc.

 

2]       The OPs filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction; that the complainant is not consumer qua OPs and the complaint is barred by limitation.  It is stated that the responsibility of the railways in case of loss etc. of the luggage being carried by the passenger in his charge on the basis of proved negligence or misconduct on the part of railways applied only in case of booked luggage.  It is also stated that in the present case, it has never been brought to the notice of Railways that the complainant was actually carrying the said belongings and thus, the railways cannot be made responsible for unbooked luggage which was not even in its knowledge.  It is further stated that the railways is responsible for booked luggage only.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegation, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant also filed rejoinder reiterating contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have examined the entire evidence & documents on record thoroughly.

 

6]       The complainant has stated that while boarding at Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station on 28.3.2015, his mobile phone was stolen at the platform. 

 

7]       The core issue arises in the present complaint is whether the complainant is entitled for any claim from the Railway Authorities due to loss/theft of his mobile phone at Nizamuddin Railway Station.

 

8]       Admittedly, the mobile phone in question was with the complainant at the time of loss as his personal belongings.  The mobile phone was not booked nor consigned to Railway Authorities for delivery or otherwise. 

 

9]       Section 100 of The Railways Act, 1989, which is reproduced as below envisages that:-

100. Responsibility as carrier of luggage.—A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefor and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants.

 

10]      Under the above provisions, the Railway Administration is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration etc. unless it is proved that the loss, destruction or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct of Railway Administration or on the part of any of its servants. 

 

11]      The complainant has lost his mobile phone by his own sheer carelessness.  He cannot attribute the loss of his mobile phone due to any lapse or negligence on the part of Railway Administration or any of its servant. The complainant has failed to substantiate his claim in the present complaint.  

 

12]      The judgments relied upon by the complainant, referred to in his replication, being distinguishable from the facts of present case, are not applicable to the present complaint.

 

13]      Keeping in view the above facts & circumstances, the complaint being without merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.    

         The copy of this order be forwarded to the parties and file be consigned to record room.

Announced

5^th September, 2017                     Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER