Order No.  10  dt.  03/04/2017

          The fact of the case in brief is that Dr. K K Kochukoshy aged 62 years, the complainant undertook railway journey on 5^th June 2014 by 12841-Koromandal Express, 2^nd AC Compartment( PNR NO. 6229021849) from Howrah Station  to Chennai with his wife and daughter and met a mishap on 6^th June, 2014 at about 6.30 A.M.near Rajahmundri Station. The complainant came to know that there was a theft and they had lost a bag containing valuable belongings a smart phone, onward ticket to Kerala and flight return ticket.  The complainant registered a FIR at Chennai GRP and handed over a complaint to the TTE, S S Srinivas Rao who was performing his duty at the train. The complainant also submitted a letter to the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, 11, Gardenreach Road, Kolkata-700043 in reply to which Additional General Manager on 01.08.2014 responded and intimated that action in this regard would be taken as early as possible. After waiting a long period and finding no appropriate action on the part of the Railway Authority regarding the theft/loss of property, the complainant lodged this complaint praying relief with compensation and cost.

Ld lawyer of the complainant argued that railway authority is responsible for the safe carriage of its passenger with their luggage and belongings. No care and caution was taken by the railway authority on that day for safety and safe keeping of the passengers, luggages were stolen while travelling on train. It was a serious deficiency in service. There was lack of proper security for the safe guard of the passengers. No RPF were present to provide security when passenger were asleep resulting in such theft and loss  of personal belongings. Further it was also argued that no steps were taken at all in spite of lodging complaint before various concerned authorities of the railway which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the railway authority.

The o.p.,railway authority denied the allegation made by the complainant It was stated that the complainant and his family travelled by train number 12841 on 05.06.2014 in 2^nd AC Coach No.A2 while the train left Rajamundri station at about 6.30 hrs on 06.06.2014 complainant found one of his bags allegedly missing and it was further reiterated  that the case is not maintainable in view of the complaint petition barred by limitation and as per the rules as envisaged in the Railway Act,1989. No deficiency in service has been caused to the complainant and the complainant could have alleged his complaint to the redressal of grievance  against the o.p. by the complainant brought  to the notice of Railway Administration.

          The o.p.railway stated that the allegation of the complainant is absolutely self fabricated fact as per the Indian Railway Coaching Tariff Part-I Volume wherein it was mentioned that passengers are requested to take it to carriages any such articles of personal luggage as are required for their own use on the journey can be placed in the carriage, undisclosed articles taken into the carriage  are carried at the entire risk of the owner. In view of the said fact the o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided :

1. Whether the complainant was travelled to Chennai by Coromondal Express on the fateful day;
2. Whether the luggage of the complainant was found missing;
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps;
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that while complainant was proceeding to Chennai by Coromondal Express on the way at Rajamundri station he heard a hue and cry, that some passengers were shouting about the loss of baggage. On checking the bags of the complainant he found that one bag was lost whereby some amount including one mobile set , train tickets  was there. Because of such incident the complainant lodged a complainant to the TTE as well as alleged a complaint at Vijawada station. Since the complainant lost the valuable articles including the cash an amount of Rs.30,000/- and no action was taken on behalf of the o.p. the complainant had to file this case.

Ld lawyer for the o.p. argued that complainant cannot have any relief under C.P.Act. The complainant could have alleged a claim as envisaged under Indian Railway Act. The complainant on the basis of some fabricated allegations claim amount from the o.p. to extract money from the o.p. In view of the said fact the o.p. prayed for a direction upon the complainant to receive the said amount and absolve the o.ps for payment of any further amount to the complainant.

          Considering the submission of the respective parties  it is an admitted fact that the complainant was travelling on that date in Coromondal Express with his family in order to proof the same the complainant had to file this case. The o.p. has not denied  that the complainant was not travelling on that date in the said train. After the incident the complainant lodged a FIR to the Police Office of South Eastern Railway and accordingly a FIR was lodged at Chennai Central Railway Police u/s 3

79 IPC. The complainant being the passenger in the said train and during the time of journey the said theft took place which caused financial loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs.71,000/- complainant claimed the amount from the o.p. It is admitted fact that the complainant was travelled in AC 2Tier it is the duty of the o.p. railway  to provide the safety and security of the passengers. O.p. failed to proof that there was any railway police was posted there in the compartment at the time of journey which establish the fact that there was gross negligent act on the part of the o.p. which culminated into an Act of deficiency on the part of o.p. Therefore, we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get the amount of the loss sustained by him for they have committed in respect of the baggage containing valuable articles.

Thus all the points are disposed of.  

          Hence, ordered

          That the case no.364/2015 is allowed on contest with  cost.

          O.p.is directed to pay a sum of Rs.71,000/- (Rupees Seventy one thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

          Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.