24.06.2024

                                    O R D E R                                     

BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2018 passed in CC.No.49/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gulbarga.

2.     Heard from respondent, the appellant is not present since from admission.  The learned advocate for respondent submits that the complainant had alleged a deficiency in service against this respondent for losing the cash of Rs.20,000/- while travelling in the train.  The complaint was dismissed by the District Commission holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party agaisnt which the complainant preferred this appeal and prays for refund of the amount, which was stolen.  Further, submits that the order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law as any goods or articles which are carried during the transit, this respondent is not responsible for any loss and damages as per the section 100 of the Indian Railway Act, 1989.  The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law, hence prays to dismiss the appeal. 

3.     Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, we noticed that the railway department generally issues the tickets for travelers and insist for issuance of tickets towards luggage, than they are going to cover the risk of carrying luggage and all.  Here we are noticed that the complainant had not taken any separate ticket for caring his luggage.  Further, the cash which was carried by himself is not considered as a luggage.  When he carried a cash, then he has to take at most caution while travelling.  He alleges theft of Rs.20,000/- while travelling for  which  he claim for refund amount from the Railway Department.  We don’t find any responsibility on the part of Railway Department/Respondent for payment of the said stolen amount.  It is a clear negligence on the part of complainant himself in not keeping his cash safely while travelling.  The negligence cannot be alleged as a deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complainant.  No irregularities found in the order passed by the District Commission. At the same time no valid reasons urged before this Commission to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.  Accordingly,       

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed. 

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

(Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                           (Ravishankar)     

       Member                                        Judicial Member

ARD*