Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/17/2018

Mrs.G.Shakunthala - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jayaraman & Associates

12 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on : 12.12.2018

                                                               Order pronounced on:  12.03.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 12^th   DAY OF MARCH  2020

 

C.C.NO.17/2018

 

Mrs.G.Shakunthala,

W/o. T.R.Sundaramani,

New No.10, Old No.15, VVM Street,

7 Wells, Near Murugan Theatre,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1. The General Manager,

Southern Railway,

Chennai – 600 003.

 

2.The General Manager,

Central Railway,

Mumbai – 400 001.

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                          : Mr.Jayaraman & Associates

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                      : M/s.PMR Associates,

                                                                       Mrs.S.Pramilalyer

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is a senior citizen, aged around 65 years and she had traveled from Chennai to Varanasi on 22.07.2017 in three Tier AC Coach in Train No.12669 – Ganga-Kaveri Express. She was allotted Berth No.44 in B1 three Tier A/C Coach. The PNR number was 4851549538. On 23.07.2017 at around 3.30 p.m, the train was about to reach Goradongri station, the complainant walked up to the toilet, there she was confronted with an unknown person who came from the adjacent AC 2- Tier Compartment. The unknown person cornered the complainant to the door of the toilet all of the sudden and snatched away her two gold chains weighing 60 grams in total and  the train was moving in a slow phase i.e., around 30 kms, per hour. At that point of time, the miscreant made an effortless escape by jumping out of the moving train. Immediately the     complainant recovered from the rude shock within fraction of seconds and shouted for help. Unfortunately, the coach attendant who is supposed to be manning the compartment was not to be found. The complainant tried to pull the alarm chain but it was in  disengaged condition. Thereafter, the complainant along with her relatives and co-passengers tried to locate the TTE  who is supposed to travel along with the train and the complainant finally found him sleeping in a vacant berth in the adjacent AC 2 tier compartment. The TTE casually asked the complainant to call 182 for seeking RPF assistance. The TTE did not render any other help or assistance at all. The coach attendant also appeared thereafter from nowhere and casually asked what had happened. The calls which the complainant made  to 182 as instructed by the TTE went elsewhere instead of Itrarsi junction and after several calls a lady officer picked up the call of the complainant and intimated her that GRP will attend her at Itrarsi junction. The police personnel who attended the complainant at Itarsi junction asked the copy of the bill of the stolen chain as a proof. The complainant tried to convince him that the gold chain was bought five years before and therefore she was not in possession of those documents. However all her efforts to convince him turned futile. Finally, after much compulsion he gave the complainant the copy of the FIR. The complainant issued legal notice to the second opposite party for act of negligence and deficiency in service of the 1^st opposite party. Since there is no reply this complaint is filed.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had lodged a police complaint and the Government Railway Police had also issued FIR copy No.11369 dated 23.07.2017 to the complainant. The said complaint is not maintainable before this Forum either. The alleged theft of the complainant’s gold chains had occurred in Betul district in Madhya Pradesh and the complainant ought to have therefore filed the consumer complaint before the appropriate Consumer Forum in Betul, Madhya Pradesh. As per railway records, the said case came up for hearing before the Hon’ble JM Court, Betul on 18.12.2017 and the matter is hence pending on the file of the Hon’ble JM Court, Betul. As per Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989 the 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 thereof. The consumer complaint has been  filed without waiting for the outcome of the investigation by Government Railway Police in Betul, Madhya Pradesh. For the above reasons, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether the complaint field is within the jurisdiction?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 & 2   

          The complainant travelled from Chennai to Varanasi in Berth No.44 of B1, three tier AC Coach of Train No.12669, Ganga Kaveri Express  on 22.07.2017. On 23.07.2017 at about 3.30 p.m. When the train was about to reach Goradongri Railway Station, an unknown person came from adjacent 2AC coach and snatched her gold chains weighing 60 grams and jumped out of the train. Hence the complainant alleges that her loss of jewels is only due to negligence of the opposite parties.  The complainant  had lodged FIR before GRP at Itrarsi Junction.  Copy of FIR is Ex.A2. Ex. A1 is the xerox copy of the ticket. Regarding this, complainant had forwarded the mails to the Railway Minister and the Board as per Ex.A3 and A4. Legal notice was issued by the complainant to 1^st opposite party   in Ex.A5. 1^st opposite party replied to complainant’s notice in Ex.A6 and directed the complainant to forward the letter to the 2^nd opposite party. Ex.A7 is the notice issued to the 2^nd opposite party and the complaint was forwarded to the Sr.DSC (RPF) at Nagpur  copy of which was sent to the complainant vide Ex.A8.

05. The opposite parties would contend that the complaint is not maintainable since the incident took place at Madhya Pradesh. The complaint is filed out of jurisdiction and the case is pending before J.M. court at Betul and hence the complaint before this forum is not maintainable. Further contends that sec.100 of R.Act,1989, the railway administration is not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and the alleged gold chains were carried by the complainant in her charge and there is no proof for the gold chain.  Hence railway is not responsible.

           06. The complaint reveals that an unknown person who cornered the complainant near the door of the toilet and snatched away her two gold chains. When the train moved in a slow phase the miscreant escaped by jumping out of the moving train. After recovered from the shock, the complainant shouted for help and she could not find the TTE’s presence and she tried to pull the alarm chain but it was in  disengaged condition. TTE was found sleeping in two tier AC compartment and the coach attendant appeared thereafter and causally asked the complainant regarding the incident.

           07. The complainant booked the ticket at Chennai and travelled from Chennai to Varanasi since the cause of action arose here at Chennai and the complaint  is filed within the jurisdiction of Chennai is not improper and as per section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act the provisions of the act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Here the complainant had filed alleging the negligence act against railway and the complaint can be filed as per the above said section before this forum. Therefore jurisdiction of the complaint would not be barred in respect of the claim for the alleged negligence against the opposite parties and opposite parties contention on the point of jurisdiction is rejected.

 

 The learned counsel for opposite parties relied upon the following judgments and submitted the citations:

 1.General Manager North Central Railway Vs Dhirendra Kumar Rai & Anr. (NCDRC, 5^th June 2015).

2. Station Superintendent, North Western Railway & 3 ors Vs Jasmin Mann  Shri Ganga Nagar Rajasthan (NCDRC, 15^th December 2017)

3.G.M. Northern Railway Vs Anupama Sharma ( SCDRC, Punjab)

Section 100 is not much required to be discussed since the lost article is a wearing apparel, where the booking is not necessary. Therefore, the case is to be discussed only with respect to the duties cast upon the railway.

Serial no.4,14,16 and 17 are dealt in the  above case, wherein the duties list of TTE in a sleeper coaches prescribed by railway administration is as follows:

  4. He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach, guide them to their berths/seats and prevent unauthorized persons from entering into the coach. He shall in particular ensure that persons holding platform tickets, who came to see off or receive passengers, do not enter the coach.

  14. He shall ensure that the doors of the coach are kept locked wherein the train is on the move and open them up for passengers as and when required.

  16. He shall ensure that the end doors of vestibule trains are kept locked between 22.00 and 6.00 hrs to prevent outsiders entering the coach.

As decided, a bare reading of the above referred rules TTE attached to the AC sleeper coach is to be very vigilant about anyone entering in the compartment other than the passengers who are to be seated in that particular  compartment with reserved tickets and also during night hours TTE has to take  special care as mentioned in the duties and it cast a responsibility upon him  to ensure that the doors of the coach are kept locked when the train is on move and restrict unauthorized persons entry in the compartment. The complainant’s allegations of the absence of  TTE and guard in the coach during the incident is neither denied by the opposite parties nor proved their presence otherwise. Their contention is that TTE had only helped the complainant for registering FIR and further contacts to GRP. But all that happened later to the incident. There is no dispute that the complainant had travelled with the reserved ticket in A/C coach. Any person who buys a reserve ticket in a train would expect that they can enjoy the journey at least with minimum amount of safety and security. In the present case an unknown person entered inside the compartment of the complainant taking advantage of the absence of TTE or coach attendant and was able to move freely to the other compartment to commit a theft. Hence safety assurance was broken by the attitude of TTE and coach attendant and the railway failed to perform the duty as incorporated in their rules which led to the commission of the offence. Ex.B1 is the trip maintenance records dated  22.07.2017 and  it is proved from Ex.B1 that the alarm signal apparatus was intact. Hence the allegation against the railway regarding the alarm signal point is  not accepted by this forum. Since FIR was registered and further action was taken as a theft case,  we come to the conclusion that there is loss of jewellary worth 60 gms as per the complaint. Therefore this forum is of the view that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties employees for which opposite parties are duty bound to pay compensation to the complainant for  their deficiency in service.

08. POINT NO.3:

           As discussed above opposite parties are directed to pay  Rs.1,36,000/- to compensate the loss and Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service caused to the Complainant besides the cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties jointly or severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty six  thousand only) as compensation to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) towards mental agony and deficiency in service  besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for costs.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of the payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 12^th  day of March 2020.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.05.2017                   IRCTC-E-Ticket PNR No.4851549538

Ex.A2 dated 23.07.2017                   FIR Copy

Ex.A3 dated 04.08.2017                   E-mail by the petitioner to the Railway Minister

Ex.A4  dated 10.08.2017                  Forward of the petitioner’s Email by the Railway 

                                                    Minister to DGRPF Railway Board

 

Ex.A5 dated 09.09.2017                   Notice to the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A6 dated  26.09.2017                  Reply by the opposite party

 

Ex.A7 dated 13.10.2017                   Notice to the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A8 dated 13.11.2017                   Reply  by the 2^nd opposite party

                  

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE    OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B1 dated 22.07.2017          Trip Maintenance Record

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT