Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/2/2019

Varun Vasesi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/2/2019
Date of Institution	:	31/12/2018
Date of Decision	:	07/01/2019

 

Varun Vasesi son of Shri Ram Kumar Vasesi, resident of # 563, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S­

1.      The Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.

2.      The Station Master, Northern Railway, Industrial Area, I, Daria, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY

:

Complainant in person.

PER RATTAN SINGH THAKUR, PRESIDENT

1.             Allegations as set out in the complaint are, the complainant on 13.08.2018 had boarded in a Goa Sampark Kranti Train No.12045 from Chandigarh to Hazrat Nizamuddin. His case is, he was travelling on a reserved 3AC Ticket of Rs.540/- during the night. Per complainant, the journey had to be cut short at New Delhi Railway Station as the bag of the complainant with valuable and official laptop & charger were stolen during the journey. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged which is pending investigation. It is on account of these allegations, it is averred that there has been deficiency in service as the opposite parties did not provide security of the articles to the complainant, therefore, had been deficient in rendering the services. Hence, this present consumer complaint.

2.             Documents annexed with the complaint, i.e., copy of FIR No.RLY-NDR-000908 dated 13.08.2018 registered with e-Police Station, New Delhi Railway Station perused. The recitals contained in the FIR are that complainant on 13.08.2018 had noticed at Railway Station New Delhi that his laptop and other articles were found stolen. The said FIR is pending investigation and the police had not arrived at a definite finding with regard to story of theft and this is also not the case that police had failed to identify the offenders and recover the stolen property as was allegated in the FIR. Thus, it is not yet established the theory of theft allegated plus there was no failure of police to identify the offenders and recover the stolen property and then to retrieve it to the complainant.

3.             Perusal of the record also does not show that list of articles stolen was disclosed to the opposite parties say, they had the knowledge that complainant was traveling in the train alongwith articles which were found stolen. The theft had taken place is not allegated whether the complainant was sleeping but this remained unnoticed. Not the case the complainant remained attentive during the journey.

4.             The complainant has relied on case titled as “Union of India and Ors. Versus J.S.Kunwar” reported in 2010(1)CPJ 90, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held deficient in service on the part of railway as railway had permitted unauthorized persons to enter into reserved compartment and luggage of the claimant was stolen and it is on account of these allegations, it established deficiency in service on the part of railway. The complainant further relied on case titled as “General Manager, South Central Railway versus Pushpa Babu” reported in 2003(3) CPJ 528 Andhra Pradesh State Commission. In this case, there was theft of jewellery and train did not stop on pulling the chain, shutter connecting one compartment with other found open. The complaint was not received by train guard, therefore, the deficiency was held. Further the complainant relied on case titled as “Vinod Sanghi vs. Union of India Railway” reported in 2006(2) CPJ 142 National Commission, where the theft of luggage taken place by cutting the chain during railway journey. While in this case, such are not the allegations that there was any proof of theft except for the own saying of the complainant that his articles were found missing and he discovered it as such at Railway Station New Delhi. Hence, these precedents do not hold good to the facts of present case.

5.             In view of the allegations made, documents annexed and the observations made herein before, we are of the opinion that it is not case of deficiency in service on part of Indian Railway. Hence, we proceed to dismiss the complaint as not admissible.  

6.             The certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of charge. File after its due completion be consigned to record room.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
07/01/2019		[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
		Member	President