Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/2070

GURPREET - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA - RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

SH.YASH VIDHYARTHI

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2070 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 20.09.2017 passed in C.C.No.52/2014 by District Commission, Ratlam)

 

GURPREET,

S/O SHRI SURENDRA SINGH DEEMAN,

R/O B-165, ALKAPURI,

RATLAM (M.P.)                                                                                                            … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. UNION OF INDIA,

    THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER,

     WESTERN RAILWAY, CHURCH GATE,

     MUMBAI.

 

2.  DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,

     OFFICE OF DRM,

     RATLAM (M.P.) 

 

3. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,

    OFFICE OF DRM,

    DELHI.                                                                                                                    … RESPONDENTS.

                              

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri H. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the respondents.                

                

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 01.06.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratlam (for short

 

-2-

‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.52/2014 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.  

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant had booked an AC-3 ticket for himself, his mother & his sister on 03.11.2012 for journey through ‘Swaraj Express’ scheduled on 04.11.2012 from Ratlam to Ambala Cantt. The complainant was allotted berth no.14 to 16 in B-4 coach. It is alleged by him that he had kept his suitcase underneath the lower berth, which was properly locked by chain.  It is alleged that an unidentified person has stolen his suitcase and the complainant came to know about the fact when the train reached the New Delhi station.  On reaching Ambala Cant the complainant lodged the complaint with the police.  It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties/Railways are responsible for safety and security of the luggage of the passengers and since unauthorized persons were allowed to enter in the reserved compartment the aforesaid incident occurred. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties/Railways, he approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The opposite parties/Railways resisted the complaint on the ground that Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 states that the Railways are not responsible if the luggage carried by the passengers is not booked with them. The Railways have denied the averments made in the compliant

-3-

and submitted that there has been no negligence or deficiency in service on part of the Railway staff while performing their duty.

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant has not been able to prove deficiency in service on part of the Railways. Hence, this appeal

5.                Heard.  Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has erred in not appreciating the fact that the TTE had allowed entry of unauthorized passengers in the reserved coach, who had committed theft of the luggage of the complainant.  He argued that the complaint deserves to be allowed as Railways have been deficient in service.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties/Railways argued that there are no specific allegations against the Railways in the FIR lodged by the complainant/appellant. No bills of the articles which were allegedly stolen were placed on record by the complainant. On the other hand, Railways have filed affidavits of TTEs who were on duty, during the said journey.  The TTEs have denied the allegations made in the complaint.  In such circumstances, the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint and this appeal also deserves to be dismissed.

 

-4-

8.                The opposite parties/respondents have raised a specific plea that the complainant/appellant has to prove negligence and deficiency in service on part of Railways in order to hold them liable to pay compensation.  The complainant/appellant has failed to establish the same, which is evident from the record of the District Commission.

9.                As we carefully observe the FIR and report to SHO, GRP, Ambala Cantt, both dated 05.11.2012, which are available on record, we find that there are no categorical averments stating that the complainant had locked his suitcase with chain, underneath the berth and the TTE on duty had permitted unauthorized persons in the coach, as against the submission of the complainant in the complaint before the District Commission. It is pertinent to mention that the TTEs who were on duty in the subject coach have given affidavits, whereby they have denied allowing entry to any unauthorized passenger. They have also denied about reporting of any incident of theft and have also stated that none of the passengers were supplied with any FIR form. In the FIR, we find that the complainant has given reference of certain goods which were allegedly stolen but no bills to substantiate his claim has been placed on record by him, neither with the complaint nor with this appeal filed by the complainant/appellant.  

10.              In view of the above, we reach a conclusion that the District Commission has rightly inferred that the complainant has not been able to

-5-

prove that the Railways have been negligent and deficient in service in the instant matter.  The District Commission has therefore rightly dismissed the complaint vide impugned order. We do not find any ground calling for interference in the impugned order.

11.              As a result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

    (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)       (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                         PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER