BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.134 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.22 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM WARANGAL
Between:
G.Meera Bai W/o Mukteeshwar Rao
aged about 56 years, Occ: Housewife
R/o H.No.8-3-72, Old Beet Bazar
Warangal-002
Appellant/complainant
A N D
The General Manager
South Central Railway
“Rail Nilayam”,
Secundeabad-003
Respondent/opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant M/s V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent M/s R.Dilip Kumar
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
Being dissatisfied with the order of the District forum the complainant filed the appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the appellant on 18.7.2008 travelled to Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh by Train No.2590 Gorakhpur Express, along with her husband and other devotees of Sri Ramchandra Mission. They were returning on 26.7.2008 to Warangal by the train no.2591 Gorakhpur Express. For to and fro journey the appellant had reserved berth. While returning at about 2.55 p.m. when the train was passing from Kanpur Station some unidentified persons snatched away the gold chains belonging to the appellant. There was no alarm chain to stop the train and also TC was not available to lodge complaint immediately. The Railway Police at Jhanshi Station refused to receive complaint instead advised to lodge complaint at Warangal Railway Station. The complainant lodged claim at Warangal Railway Station vide FIR NO.184 dated 28.7.2008 u/s 379 of IPC and the same was transferred to Kanpur for investigation. The Railway Police, Kanpur filed final report on 20.7.2009 stating that culprit was not traced out and the recovery of the stolen items is not possible. The complainant got issued notice dated 6.2.2010 to the opposite party and filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and costs.
The opposite party resisted the case contending that the complainant did not give PNR/Ticket details. The theft had taken place before Jhansi i.e., in North Central Railway. The complainant did not make the General Manager, North Central Railway as a party to the complaint. As such the complaint is not maintainable. The value claimed is not supported by any evidence. The railway on its part provided security to the passengers in the form of RPF and GRP. Frequent announcements are made cautioning the lady passengers not to sit or sleep near the window and take care of the belongings. Every train will have the alarm chain pulling system. This facility will never be disabled. Had the complainant made hue and cry, the passengers in her compartment would have taken stops to catch the thief. The opposite party is not a necessary party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant filed her affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf fo the opposite party Dr.B.s.Christopher filed his affidavit and no documents.
The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs.60,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.500/-.
Being dissatisfied with the order of the District forum, the complainant filed the appeal contending that the District forum erred in not considering the deposition of goldsmith, Kasula Suresh who stated that during June 2008 he manufactured mangalasutram and Nallapooslatadu weighing 140 gms of gold and that the market value of 10 gms of gold was Rs.12,270/- during the last week of June 2008 and that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is meager and claimed enhancement of the same.
The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?
The admitted facts are that the appellant on 18.7.2008 travelled to Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh by Train No.2590 Gorakhpur Express, along with her husband and other devotees of Sri Ramchandra Mission. They were returning on 26.7.2008 to Warangal by the train no.2591 Gorakhpur Express. For to and fro journey the appellant had reserved berth. While returning at about 2.55 pm. When the train was passing from Kanpur Station some unidentified persons snatched away the gold chains belonging to the appellant.
The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the District forum has no jurisdiction and in regard to the theft of the gold ornaments, the appellant could have raised hue and cry when the chain was snatched away from her possession. The learned counsel for theappellant has contended that the District forum had not taken into consideration of the affidavit of the Goldsmith and as such the amount awarded by the District forum can be enhanced.
In regard to the jurisdiction of the District forum, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decisions of the National Commission in the General Manager and others vs Shri Dau Dayal Chaturvedi in F.A.No.55 of 2005 decided on 19.7.2010, Union of India Vs Sri Vishal Kumar Dev and another RP NO.191 of 2006 decided on 28.9.2010. The ratio laid in the above said decisions is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
The District forum has awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- taking into consideration of the weight of the ornaments stolen from the possession of the appellant and but for not filing the receipt showing the value of the ornaments by the appellant, the District forum has awarded the amount against the amount of Rs.1,71,780/- claimed by the appellant.
Kasula Suresh by occuatipn Gold Smith filed his affidavit before the District forum, stating that he manufactured two gold chains one of which is mangalasutra and second being black bead chain and according to him the 140 gms of gold purchased and he had charged Rs.4,000/- towards making charges. According to him the gold was purchased @ Rs.12,270/- per 10 gms for a total amount of rs.1,71,780//- which was prevailing rate during the last week June 2008. Placing heavy reliance upon the affidavit of the goldsmith, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the District forum ought to have awarded Rs.171,780p/-.
We do not consider the amount towards the consideration for the gold as stated by the goldsmith for the simple reason that the appellant failed to establish or mention anywhere in the complaint about her placing order for manufacture the gold chain and black bead chain. It is true as contended by the respondent that the amount of gold as mentioned in the FIR cannot be directed to be paid to the passenger. The District forum has rightly declined to award the amount of Rs.1,71,780/- as claimed by the appellant in the absence of any contemporaneous evidence.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court “State of Gujarath vs Shantilal Mangaldas” AIR 1969 SC 634. held the compensation to mean”…..In ordinary parlance the expression compensation means anything given to make things equivalent; a thing given to or to make amends for loss recompense, remuneration or pay, it need not therefore necessarily in terms of money. The phraseology of the Constitutional provision also indicates that compensation need not necessarily be in terms of money because it expressly provides that the law may specify the principles on which, and the manner in which , compensation is to be determined and given . If it were to be in terms of money along, the expression ‘paid’ would have been more appropriate”.
The Supreme Court held that the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable. In “Charan Singh vs Healing Touch Hospital and others” 2000SAR(Civil) 935 the Apex Court stressed the need of balancing between the compensation awarded recompensing the consumer l and the change it brings in the attitude of the service provider. The Court held “While quantifying damages , consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge”.
The appellant failed to show that she was wearing 10 tulas of gold ornaments at the time they were caused theft of near Jhansi Railway Station. On the basis of the FIR and the statement of the co-travelers it was established that she had lost gold ornaments and on her failure to prove the weight of the gold ornaments and in the absence of any supporting evidence thereof, the District forum has rightly came to the conclusion and awarded the amount to the tune of Rs.60,000/- which by any stretch of imagination can be said to be on lower side than what the appellant could deserve for. We donot find any substance in the appeal and uphold the findings recorded by the District forum.
In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order fothe District Forum. The parties shall bear their own costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.13.09.2012
KMK*
