DATE OF FILING-11.2.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL- 19.6.2014
O R D E R
Miss S.L.Pattnaik,President
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant namely Dr.Radhashyam Panda was travelling along with his wife on dt.19.1.2012 from Berhampur to Bangolore by Train No.118463 Prasanti Express in an A.C. two tier (A-1 Coach) and their berths were No.19 and 20 and their ticket number was having PNR No.6304736937. During journey it is alleged by the complainant that there were lots of dis-arrangement in the reserved AC coach and all used and dirty materials were supplied to them which were beyond the quality of sanitation. Another allegation of the complainant is that since there were no protection force i.e. Govt. Railway Police employed in the train. On that day only the T.T.I was for their protection . So on dt.20.1.2012 at 5.00 A.M. his wife informed him
-2-
that her vanity bag was missing having the valuable materials like money in cash of Rs.12,000/-,two pairs of Golden Ear Rings weighing 12 grams of (22) Carat which amounts to Rs.36,000/-, one ladies wrist watch of Rs.7,000/- having a golden band and one mobile phone of Nokia valued of about Rs.5,000/- along with two numbers of ATM Debit cards of Central Bank of India and State Bank of India, Driving License of the complainant, House Keys, Pair of Spectacles of about Rs.6,000/-. Though the complainant and his wife searched for the said bag with other co-passengers but could not find the same. Therefore, the complainant immediately lodged a complaint with the T.T.I on duty on dt. 20.1.12 and the T.T.I issued the duplicate copy to the complainant saying that the complaint has been registered in Guntakal Raillway Police Station . When no action was taken by the Opposite Parties, the complainant issued legal notices to the Opposite Parties on dt.4.10.2012 to which the Opposite Party No.3 and 4 were replied on dt. 23.11.2012 and 19.10.2012 respectively. The complainant further submits that on purchase of the ticket, a contract evolves between the complainant and the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties are duty bound to provide all safety and comfort in the journey which the Opposite Parties could not provide to him in the present case as a result he suffered a lot and lost his balance of mind which is clearly a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Alleging negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties ;the complainant filed this complaint case before thus forum praying compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs towards deficiency of service compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony with interest from the date of cause of action till the final payment and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.
In support of his case, the complainant has filed certain documents and also filed rejoinder to the written version of the Opposite Parties.
2- Notices were duly served upon the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.1 to 4 filed their written version jointly on dt. 7.1.2014. Opposite Party No.5 filed his para-wise comment on dt. 7.5.2013 but O.P.No.6 did not filed any version. Further O.P.No.5 and 6 did not participate in the hearing so they became ex-parte on dt. 11.2.2014.
3- In their written version, the Opposite Party No.1 to 4 denied any negligence on their part and also submitted that as per the provisions Section -100 of the Indian Railway Act, railway authorities shall not be responsible for any loss, destruction, damage, deterioration, etc. caused to passengers luggage unless the railway servant has booked the luggage and is given a receipt to this effect to the passenger. In the instant
-3-
case, the passenger had not entrusted its safety to any railway officials and was carrying the luggage at his own risk. So they pray to dismiss the case as they are not liable and no way responsible for the complainant’s loss.
4- The Opposite Party No.5 in his para-wise comments resisted the complaint of the complainant and denied any negligence on its part and further submitted that the supply of bed rolls to the passengers of the A.C. Coach are not their look out but it is the responsibility of the Railway employees who are performing their duty as AC coach conductors and as T.T.Es. They should have taken care of the bonafied passengers who are travelling in the AC coaches. It is also further submitted by the O.P.,No.5 that the occurrence took place in the territorial jurisdiction of GRP, Andhra Pradesh, therefore he is not liable for any negligence in their service to the complainant.
5- Heard the matter from the parties and have gone through the evidence on the record. The fact that the complainant along with his wife was travelling by train from Berhampur to Bangalore is not in dispute. It is also admitted fact that complainant lodged a complaint with the T.T.I. on duty that he had lost some valuable articles containing in his wife’s vanity bag while travelling in the train, which is further proved through the letter issued by Divisional Commercial Manager, Guntakal dt.23.11.2012(Annedxure-5), letter issued by S.Khader Basa TTI/SC/GTL to the Senior D.C.M./GTL dt. 7.11.2012(Annexure-5A)/Letter issued by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Khurda Road/F.I.R.. lodged in the running train(Annexure-2) and the letter No.5039/DCR BX dt. 27.11.2012 issued by Superintendent of Police,Railway Cuttack. In the instant case, the complainant is definitely a consumer of the services of the Railway in respect of the personal luggage permitted by lit to be carried during the railway journey because Railways were not rendering any gratuitous services to the complainant with respect to the personal luggage as the charges paid by the complainant for his journey in the given circumstances would be consideration for the personal luggage also. When the weight of the luggage exceeds the particular limit charges has to be paid but in the instant case the personal luggage carried by the complainant is within the limit. So it became the part of the charges made for the railway journey.
To the further contention of the Opposite Parties are that the railway is entitled to the immunity provided under the provision of Section -100 of the Railways Act to which the Forum view that due to the negligence on the part of the railway officials i.e.T.T.I., who though on duty could not prevent the un-authorised person thereby allowing free
-4-
access to the person or persons who had stolen the vanity bag of the wife of the complainant and so also due to the absence of Govt.Railway Police on duty on that day the incident happened to the complainant. It is the responsibility of the T.T.E attached to the concerned A.C.Coach to ensure that he would remain vigilant particularly during the night time and thus ensure that no unauthorized person enters the coach which in the present case the concerned officer on duty failed to do so. The complainant alleged that there was no Govt. Railway Police on duty on that day only the T.T.I. was there that to which the Opposite Parties have not been convincingly challenged with any oral or documentary evidence. So the Forum accepted the version of the complainant. Though the complainant informed about the occurrence to all the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties remained silent over the matter without proper enquiry and investigation and shifted the responsibility to each other saying that they have no jurisdiction is really unjustified and the Opposite Parties are responsibility for this theft..
On this point we rely on the decision of Union of India and others Vrs. Sanjiv Dil Sukhraj Dave and another reported in 2003 CTJ 196(CP) NCDRC.
6- Another allegation of the complainant is that all used and directly bed rolls were supplied to the complainant by the Railways. On enquiry the complainant got the reply that the cleaned materials which happened to come from Puri with the regular attendants could not reach in time. So the used materials are given for use to which the complainant and his wife suffered a much. The facts alleged by the complainant in the complaint were not disputed by the Railway by giving particulars except in its written version it had mainly denied what ever the complainant said. Further, the Railways i.e. O.P.No.1 to 4 did not file any evidence of the train attendant or any other person to rebut the evidence led by the complainant. So the Forum views that it is the duty of the Opposite Party No.1 to 4 to see that cleaned bed rolls should be supplied to the passengers. The Opposite Party No.5 and 6 has no role to play regarding the supply of bed roll matter particularly people expect in the present century an efficient and reliable service which provides at least safety of person and property while travelling in reserved compartments.
On considering the above facts and circumstances, the Forum hold that the Opposite Parties are negligent and deficiency in providing proper service to the complainant. Hence ordered.
-5-
O R D E R
The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.66,000/-(Rupees Sixty six thousand) towards the value of the stolen articles along with compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) towards mental agony and litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereafter till realization of the awarded amount. The case is disposed of accordingly.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 19th day of June,2014
I AGREE(MEMBER) I AGREE(MEMBER) PRESIDENT
(Dr.N.Tuna Sahu) (Smt.Minati Pradhan) (Miss S.L.Pattnaik)
