Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/24/2016

MR. SANJOG KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER (N.F. RAILWAY) - Opp.Party(s)

SRI SOMEN DAS CHAUDHARY

24 Aug 2018

ORDER

The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a ticket for journey in the Brahmaputra Mail, Train No.14055 dated 21.03.16 from Dibrugarh to Diphu, as he was assigned duty for election at Diphu. He was provided  ticket bearing PNR No.6550526751 at AC 3 Tire by paying cost of Rs.640.80/-. Accordingly, on 21.03.16 he boarded in Brahmaputra Mail at Banipur at the Berth No-17 of Coach No.B-3, Train No.14055. The above train started moving at about 11:10PM from Banipur and OP No.5 started checking ticket of passengers from Tinsukia onwards. While the ticket of the complainant was examined by T.T.E., he enquired about the security arrangement of the train to the OP No.5 who assured him that there is no any risk of stealing any articles. He also enquired about the security of the train. The OP No.5 also informed that the travelling coach of the complainant is an AC Coach and non-reserved ticket holders are not allowed to enter into the coach. The complainant being assured from TTE put his luggage i.e. a purple colour sky bag below his seat and fell asleep.  On the next day morning at about 5:00 AM when he wake up for his natural call he could observe that his bag was missing from its place.  The complainant searched all around the compartment of Coach No.B-3 but all effort went on vein and bag was not found. The complainant immediately tried to contact with OP No.5 and GRPF, but unfortunately none of them was available as such, the complainant finding the attendant of the coach informed the matter to him and also asked for complaint book. But the complaint book was not provided to him. As soon as the complainant reached Diphu Station he rushed to GRPF to lodge a complaint about the loss of his luggage. But the Officer-in-Charge of GRPF was not willing to take his complaint and advised him not to lodge any complaint as no fruit will come out.  The complainant informed this matter to SDJM of Diphu and ADC of Dibrugarh over phone. The complainant further stated that the duty of the Ticket Collector, Coach Attendant and GRPF are to ensure that no unauthorised person shall enter into the reserved AC coach and also to ensure that door of the coach shall remain close from 9:00Am- 6:00AM, but the OPs failed to discharge their duties and acted in negligent manners due to which the unfortunate incident took place for which, the complainant had to suffer both mentally and physically and loss of Rs.70,000/- for the loss of his said luggage. The OPs are bound to provide adequate security in the coach which they failed and OP No.5 was on duty had very negligently escaped from the coach for which he was not found in the coach at the time of incident. The service rendered by the OPs are fully imperfect, inadequate in quality for which complainant had to suffer. The aforesaid incident took place due to inadequate security and negligence of the OPs, which is sufficient to disclose deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such, the complainant is compelled to file this case against the OP for which he claims Rs.70,000/- as compensation along with interest for loss of the baggage and Rs.2,00,000/- for his mental and physical agony and harassment along with cost of litigation.

 

       After registering the case notices were issued to all the OPs to which they have contested the case by filing written statement stating inter – alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. The cause of action arose near Dimapur as such, this Forum at Dibrugarh lacks in territorial jurisdiction to try this case. The OPs stated that OP No.5 Ramesh Chandra Das, TTE was on duty in 14055 down Brahmaputra Mail from Dibrugarh to Moriani was performing as coach TTE in AC coaches upto Moriani Station. As the coaches are reserved no unauthorised persons are allowed to enter in reserved coach. Regarding enquiry by the complainant to the TTE, OP No.5 stated that on 21.03.16 no query was made by any passenger of the coaches regarding security arrangement of the train nor did any passenger talked about theft. OP No-5 had no knowledge about what luggage was kept by the complainant while travelling in the train. At the time of happening of the incident OP No.5 Ramesh Ch. Das was no more in the train as his duty was over from Moriani. So far complaint book is concerned, it does not remain with the coach attendant, it is always available with the coach TTE. The OP further stated that there is no rule for keeping the door of reserved coach locked from 9:00 AM- 6:00AM, but the doors remain closed so that every station the passenger concern have facility for boarding as well as  de-boarding. Apart from these it is not possible for the TTE to know the luggage of the passengers as no name is mentioned in the luggages nor the TTE checked the luggages. As regards to the negligence on the part of OP is concerned, at the time of incident OP No.5 was  not on duty, RPF personnel provided for the train for escort were exercising their patrolling duty in the  entire train. Besides, security help line No.182 is also available in addition to the train escort. As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Had there been any deficiency of service on the part of OP much more incident would hake taken place on that day. Besides, OPs are not responsible as the luggage was not booked and as such, it became the responsibility of the passenger to keep a vigilance eye on their belongings. The complainant was negligent and was not taking proper care of his luggage for which the luggage was lost. The complainant to cover his own fault, negligence and carelessness held responsibility on the OP for his illegal gain and thereby there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with cost.

 

In this case, Complainant gave evidence of 1 (one) witness by swearing affidavit and exhibited as many as 5(five) documents in support of his case. On the other hand, OPs have examined 1(one) witness Sri Parimal Mali as DW-1  and exhibited only 1 (one) document as Document No-A  to rebut the case of the complainant.

Complainant and OPs have submitted their written argument.

 

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :

Upon going through the evidence, documents and arguments advanced by both the parties it appears that the complainant boarded in Brahmaputra Mail, Train No.14055 on 21.03.16 at AC 3 Tire, Coach No.B-3 and Berth No.17 is not denied by the OP. The complainant boarded at Dibrugarh at about 11:10PM and OP No.5 examined the ticket of the complainant from Tinsukia. While the OP was checking ticket the complainant asked OP No.5 regarding security arrangement of the train, in reply to which OP No.5 assured the complainant that this is AC Coach and nothing is going to happen as because no unauthorised persons are allowed to be enter in the reserved coach. The complainant being assured, kept his luggage below his seat and fell asleep. But unfortunately, in the morning before reaching Dimapur he found that his luggage was missing. He went on searching his luggage inside the coach  B-3 but did not find. The theft took place due to the lack of adequate security and in absence of the TTE. The complainant immediately after occurrence and tried to contact with OP No.5 and also GRPF  but he found none of them. Then the complainant asked for the complaint book to the coach attendant who was available in the coach, but the complaint book was not found with him. After reaching Diphu Station the complainant immediately approached to GRPF to lodge a complaint but they were not ready to take his complaint. Complainant then immediately informed the matter to SDM of Diphu and ADC of Dibrugarh over phone. The duty of TTE, Coach Attendant and GRPF are to ensure that no unauthorised person shall enter into the reserved compartment and also to ensure that the door of the coach is remain closed from 9:00PM- 6:00Am which they failed to discharge properly and only acted in casual manner causing unfortunate incident for which complainant had to suffer loss of Rs.20,000/- cash and other valuable clothes amounting to Rs.50,000/- and mental and physical harassment. All these things happened due to negligence on the part of OP No.5, GRPF and the attendant.

The OPs in their written statement as well as in evidence admitted that it is a case of theft but they denied their negligence. The OPs have submitted that the complaint book is available with the TTE and not with the coach attendant. Further, it is admitted that TTE was not in the train at the time of incident as he had already handed his duty at  Moriani Station. The OPs stated that OP No.5 Ramesh Ch. Das was on duty on that day but his duty was upto Moriani Station. Further, it is contended that the OP No.5 had no knowledge about the luggage which was kept by the complainant while travelling in the train. The OP further contended that there is no rule for keeping the door of reserved coach locked from 9:00AM to 6:00AM, but the door remains closed so that every station the passenger concern have facility for boarding as well as de-boarding. As regard the negligence on the part of OP is concerned, at the time of incident OP No.5 was not on duty and RPF personnel provided for the train for escort were exercising their patrolling duty. There was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP. Further, it is contended that OPs are not responsible regarding the luggage which were booked. It is the responsibility of the passenger to keep a vigilance eye on their belongings. The complainant himself was negligent and was not taking proper care of his luggage for which the luggage was lost. He himself was negligent and carelessness for which the complainant had to lose his luggage and as such, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of OP.

The first contended that the cause of action arose near Dimapur and as such, this Forum at Dibrugarh has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case of the complainant. Further, N.F. Railway, Dibrugarh has not been made party in this case. So far as this contention is concerned, the complainant purchased his ticket at Dibrugarh to proceed from Dibrugarh to Diphu and the incident took place at Dimapur but the complainant boarded at Dibrugarh and also purchased the ticket from Dibrugarh. As such, the jurisdiction is either at Dimapur or Dibrugarh. The complainant can file the case either at Dimapur or at Dibrugarh being the boarding place. As such, this Dibrugarh Forum has jurisdiction to try his case. As regards to the party that the complainant has not made N.F.Railway, Dibrugarh as party, in this respect it is to be mentioned that the complainant made party the Divisional Personnel Manager and Divisional Manager of Tinsukia and the Dibrugarh comes under the Division of Tinsukia. Hence, making multiple of parties is not necessary.

As regards to the OP No.5 is concerned, the OPs mentioned that Ramesh Ch. Das was on duty on that day from Dibrugarh to Moriani Station and as such, he handed over his duty at Moriani Station. In this respect it is pertinent to mention here that a train cannot mover without TTE. There must be some TTE in the train while running. The complainant in this case did not specifically mention to name of Mr. Ramesh Ch. Das, but mentioned as TTE whether it may be Ramesh Ch. Das or may be some other person because there must be TTE on duty. The complainant  mentioned that there was no TTE at the time of incident nor there was any security personnel. There was only one attendant and as there was neither TTE nor security personnel the incident take place. However, the Railway Authority must ensure proper and adequate service to this passenger. Non-availability of the TTE in the train whether may be Ramesh Ch. Das or some other persons is definitely negligence on the part of the OP. The OP further contended that there is no rule for keeping the door of the reserved coach under lock from  9:00AM-6:00AM as mentioned by the complainant as because there must be facility for boarding as well as de-boarding of the passengers in every station. However, it is to be mentioned that the door of the coach which are also called main entrance doors were not required to be locked but it is abundant duty on the part of the TTE that  the door of the coach be latched from inside when the train was on the move. Apart from these, the vestibule doors are to be locked in between 9:00PM-6:00AM. Whether the vestibule doors were locked was not been assured but it was duty of the TTE to lock the said door so that the unauthorised persons cannot go through one compartment to another compartment for the security reason. The TTE of the coach was negligent on his duty by not keeping the doors of such coach. Further, it appears that the main two doors of the coach were not latched from inside as it appears that the TTE was not available in the coach to latch the door from inside which is abundantly clear that the OPs were negligent on performing their duties.

The OP contended that it is not known to OP No.5 what luggage was kept by the complainant while travelling in the train. If the luggage would have been booked the OP would have been responsible for the same as per section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989. Since the belongings of the passengers are kept with the passengers, it becomes the responsibility of the passenger to keep a vigil eye on their luggages. As per section 100 of the Indian Railway Act the OPs are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the  passenger with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway or any of its employee. The case of the complainant is that the theft of his luggage was caused as the doors of coach were not latched from inside by the concerned TTE. Railways being a major public utility service is duty bound to ensure safety of the passenger not only within the train but also with the property belonging to and maintain by them. As such, the fault is entirely with the concerned member of Railway Administration and cannot try to escape liability therefore. We have no hesitation to hold that OPs are responsible for gross negligence and deficiency in service.

The OP contended that the complaint book remains with the TTE and not available with the coach attendant. In this respect it is to be mentioned that while the complainant after stealing his luggage searched the TTE and security personnel none ws available in the coach. The OP cannot escape from their liability by saying Ramesh Ch. Das was on duty from Dibrugarh to Moriani Station. There must be one TTE on duty in the train but at the time of incident the TTE was not found for which complainant finding no other alternative had to approach before the coach attendant for the complaint book. Had the TTE been available at the time of incident he could have make complaint in the complainant book after having the book from TTE. This clearly reflect inadequate faulty service given by the Railway Authority for which Railway Authority shall be held liable for the same.

It is to be mentioned there that passengers travelling by train are entitled to carry certain bags and luggages within permissible limit at free of cost. There is no question of entrusting such bags or luggages to the Railway Authority and getting receipt thereof. If a lost take place of such luggage the Railway Authority can be held responsible, provided their negligence on the part of the Railway or any of the servant, provided better that passengers himself was reasonable care of his personal luggage as expected from a prudent person. In the case in hand it appears that complainant was cautious and took every care of his luggage and after boarding he enquired about the matter with the TTE and TTE assured him that no such incident would take place and on getting the above assurance from TTE he kept his luggage under his seat and fell asleep. From perusal of the evidence on record it is found that in the coach of the complainant TTE was not available while the train was on move, he did not perform his duty to lock vestibule doors and also not latched the main door from inside and as such, the doors remained easily to be opened from outside in any station for boarding the passengers as well as de-boarding for which some unauthorised persons could have entered in any station and easily been escape after stealing the luggage of the complainant. Had there been tight security as well as latch the main doors from inside the incident would have not take place. As such, it appears clearly that the loss of luggage took place due to negligence on the part of the TTE by not preventing to enter unauthorised person inside the coach. In this respect the case of Central Railway, Bhuswawl and others vs. Ashok Kumar Gangaram Ranglani (Maharashtra SCDRC) which was discussed about the duties of the TTE to the coach which it was cited in Union of India vs. Sanjeev Dilsukhrain Dev reported in 2003 CTJ 196 (CP)= 2 (2003) CPJ 72 (NC) where it was held and read as  under –

“ A major responsibility cast on the TTE in addition to examine the tickets is that of  ensuring that no intruders enter the reserved compartments and the TTE was not available at the time of entry by the intruders. This is certainly a gross dereliction of duty, which resulted in deficiency in service to the respondent.”

 

From the above it appears that the duty of the TTE is not only to check the tickets of the passenger in the coach, guide them to their berth and prevent unauthorised person from the coach, but he shall ensure that no intruder shall enter into the coach.

In Sumati Devi M. Dhanvatay vs. Union of India and others reported in 2004 CTJ 700 (SC)=2004 NCJ 269 SC it has been held that –

 “Looting in Railway compartment by unauthorised persons- complaint lies to the Consumer Forum and failure to taken precaution and preventing measures causing lost to bonafide passenger amount to deficiency on the part of the Railway.”

Further, in the case of Central Railway, Bhusawl and others Ashok Kumar Ranglani (Infra) where it has been held-

“ Railway Administration cannot escape from its liability for negligence and deficiency in service in failing to prevent unauthorised persons entering in Railway compartment and taking away the luggage of passengers. It is an apparent from the above case that jurisdiction of Fora is not ousted U/s 138 and 15,123 and 124 of Railway Tribunal Act.”

In view of above cited cases and the facts stated under the circumstances, it is clear that C.P. Act as provided provision for the correcting the shortcoming in the service and provided by way of awarding compensation or other means specified in the provision 14 (d) the Forum comes to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service and the loss suffered by the complainant for the reason discussed above for not providing security as well as for not providing duty by the TTE, there lies material of committing serious negligence and deficiency in service. So this Forum comes to an unassailable conclusion that some order can rightly be passed as such, this Forum direct OPs to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- for the loss of luggage with interest @ 7% per annum from filing of this case, in absence of documents and proof of material available in the luggage. Further, this Forum direct OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for having such mental harassment and agony by the complainant along with the cost of litigation of Rs.2000/-. The OPs are directed to pay the above amount within one month from the date of this judgement.

Send copy of this judgment to the OPs for compliance.