Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/96/2019

Sri Arun Kumar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway - Opp.Party(s)

Binod Kumar Singh

13 Apr 2023

ORDER

                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-29-05-2019

Date of final hearing-13-04-2023

 Date of Order-13-04-2023

Case No. 96/2019

1. Sri Arun Kumar Singh S/o Late Rajendra Singh

2. Smt. Manju Devi, W/o Sri Arun Kumar Singh

R/o Flat No. K-33, Sri Ram Tower, Kalika Vihar, Aashiana

Phase- II, Chira Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhand

Vs.

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

East Central Railway, Sonepur Division, Sonepur, Saran, Bihar

2. The Area Railway Manager, Bokaro Steel City Junction,

South Eastern Railway, Adra Division, Bokaro Steel City,

Bokaro, 827011

 Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1. Complainant’s  case in brief is that while he along with other relatives were travelling in Train No. 15228 from Muzaffarpur to Katihar on 23.04.2018 on birth No. 49,50,51 & 52 of Coach No. S-4 and train was in between Teghra and Barouni station, some miscreants snatched ladies bag of complainant No.2 on 24.04.2018 at about 00:00 hours for which G.R. P.S. Case No. 63/2018 u/s 379 IPC was registered. Further case is that said bag was containing ATM Cards of SBI, IDBI Banks, chain, neckless, bangles, pendant of ear rings (Jhumka) all gold made, voter ID Card, cash about Rupees six thousand, one Redmi mobile phone with SIM No. 908729640, keys of the house, make up kit and power spectacles etc. total valued Rs. 3,00,000/- of the complainant. Further case is that at the time of occurrence non of the railway staff was attending the coach. Mobile of the complainant was recovered and seized by the Police. Further case is that due to negligent service on the part of the O.Ps. complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony. Inspite of issuance of legal notice no reply was given by O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 denied its responsibility, hence this case has been filed with prayer to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 2,92,000/- to the complainant towards loss suffered by him and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for various type of harassment.
2. O.P. No.1 has filed W.S. and denied the allegations by challenging the jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Railway Act 1989 and prayed for dismissal of the case in view of the provisions of section 13, 15, 28 & 100 of the Railway Act 1989. More or less same reply has been filed by the O.P. No.2.
3.  Now we have to see whether complainants are able to prove  their case for grant of relief as prayed ?
4. Ld. Counsel for the O.P. has placed reliance on principles laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in II (2016) CPJ 642 (NC), decision dt. 15.11.2010 passed in Revision No. 3832/2010 but it appears that facts and circumstance of this case are different from the facts and circumstance of the cases reported, hence  it is not helpful for the O.Ps.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the principles laid down in the reported cases reported in  2017 (2) CPR 756 (NC), 2018 (3) CPR 35 (NC), 2017 (4) CPR 513 (NC) and on the decision dt. 25.05.2017 passed by Hon’ble the State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in F.A. No. 34/2017 but facts and circumstances of those cases are different from the facts and circumstance related to the case in hand hence it is not helpful for the complainants.
6. In support of contents of the complaint petition complainants have produced photo copy of Railway Ticket, photo copy of FIR of GRP Barauni P.S. Case No. 63/2018, photo copy of charge sheet filed in that very case, photo copy of estimate paper dt. 04.05.2015, 20.02.2018 , 21.05.2015 ,tax invoice dt. 23.03.2018 to show that they had purchased Golden Ornaments on different dates and photo copy of legal notice as well as reply to notice by the O.P.
7. On careful perusal of estimate papers it appears that approval slip dt. 21.05.2015 has been issued without name of any person. Vide tax invoice dt. 23.03.2018 two piece Pola has been purchased but all the estimate are in the name of A.K. Singh. Other estimate are not showing that any article has been purchased by the complainants through it.  Charge sheet of GRP P.S. Case No. 63/2018 shows that mobile phone of the complainant has recovered by the Police and charge sheet against two accused persons has been filed but there is no paper on the record to show outcome of that very criminal case.

 

8. On careful perusal of the materials available on the record it is very much clear that outcome of GRP  Barauni P.S. Case No. 63/2018 / GR- 84/2018 has not been brought on record. It is said that occurrence of theft was occurred on 24.04.2018 but present complaint has been filed before this Commission on 29.05.2019 after lapse of more than one year one month period from the date of occurrence which creates serious doubt about the case. Complainants have not produced any evidence to prove or to show that alleged ornaments/articles  were being carried by them during alleged travelling. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that alleged articles were being carried by the complainant No.2 at the time of occurrence. None of the complainant has examined himself/herself before this Commission to testify the truthfulness of the allegation. Therefore, we are of the view that complainants failed to prove/establish their case for grant of any relief. Accordingly this point is being decided against the complainants.
9. In the result, this case is being dismissed on contest. In the facts and circumstance of the case parties shall bear their own costs.

 

 

J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

                            

                  

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

Member