Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/2026

SMT.DIPIKA VYAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SH.M.BHATNAGAR

22 Feb 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2026 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 04.09.2017 passed in C.C.No.281/2016 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

SMT. DIPIKA VYAS,

W/O SHRI VISHAL KUMAR VYAS,

R/O FLAT NO.31, ARJUN COMPLEX,

BEHIND SEVA SADAN, JUGSALAI,

POLICE STATION-JUGSALAI,

DISTRICT-TATANAGAR (JHARKHAND)                                                                 … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,

     SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY,

     GARDEN REACH ROAD,

     KOLKATA (WEST BENGAL)

 

2. THE CHAIRMAN,

    RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN,

    RAISEENA ROAD, NEW DELHI.

 

3. GENERAL MANAGER,

    WESTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY,

    JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

4. STATION MASTER,

    RAILWAY STATION, SAGAR (M.P.)                                                                      … RESPONDENTS.

                              

FIRST APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 04.09.2017 passed in C.C.No.281/2016 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,

     SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY,

     GARDEN REACH ROAD,

     KOLKATA (WEST BENGAL)

 

2. THE CHAIRMAN,

    RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN,

    RAISEENA ROAD, NEW DELHI.

 

3. GENERAL MANAGER,

    WESTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY,

    JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

4. STATION MASTER,

    RAILWAY STATION, SAGAR (M.P.)                                                                 … APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

 

SMT. DIPIKA VYAS W/O SHRI VISHAL KUMAR VYAS,

R/O FLAT NO.31, ARJUN COMPLEX,

BEHIND SEVA SADAN, JUGSALAI,

POLICE STATION-JUGSALAI,

DISTRICT-TATANAGAR (JHARKHAND)                                                         … RESPONDENT. 

                                 

-2-

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

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

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Ms. Shivali Singh Parihar for Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Sandeep Savita, learned counsel for the respondent.                

                

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 22.02.2023)

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

 

                   Aforesaid two appeals arise out of a common order and are taken up together.  For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.2026/2017 unless otherwise stated.  

2.                Aforesaid appeals assail the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.281/2016 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint. First Appeal No.2026/2017 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation whereas First Appeal No.71/2018 has been filed by the opposite parties for setting aside the impugned order.         

3.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant was travelling along with his brother on berth no.65 & 68 in coach no. S-1 of train no.19659-Shalimar Udaypur Express, on 24.08.2015 from Tatanagar to Sagar. It is alleged that during the course of the journey, the TTE allowed

-3-

unauthorized passengers to board the compartment resulting in huge rush in the bogie. No GRP and RPF personnel were there in the compartment.  It is stated that she had kept her bag chained and locked beneath the berth. When the train was reaching Jharsuguda Railway Station, some unidentified miscreants broke the chain and took away the bag which was chained and locked beneath the berth. After the incident the railway staff did not cooperate with her. The complainant eventually lodged FIR at the destination with the GRP Police Station, Sagar. Thereafter the matter was transferred to Jharsugada and crime was registered. It is alleged that due to negligence of the opposite parties, her bag containing articles worth Rs.3,50,000/- was stolen. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief. 

4.                The opposite parties in their reply before the District Commission raised objection that as per Section 4 of the Railways Act, the complainant has not impleaded parties properly. As per the complainant, the incident occurred between Chakradharpur and Jharsuguda Railway Station. Therefore, the District Commission, Sagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further submitted that the complaint can only be made to the Railway Claims Tribunal. Also, as per Section 2(14) fare is charged for journey of passengers and is not applicable to the goods kept

-4-

with them. Railway administration is not responsible for loss as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 if the luggage is not booked. If some valuable goods were kept in the bag, the complainant ought to have booked the same. The complainant has filed false report in order to get undue compensation. The bills produced by the complainant are fake. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties, jointly or severally to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of order, till realization. Cost of Rs.3,000/- is also awarded.

6.                Heard.  Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that it was specifically mentioned in the FIR that value of jewelry which was stolen was Rs.3.50,000/-. Despite that the District Commission has awarded only Rs.1,50,000/-, which is inadequate. She argued that the complainant had placed bills of the articles, which were stolen on record and the District Commission ought to have awarded compensation on the basis of those bills.  She argued that compensation awarded by the District Commission deserves to be enhanced.

 

-5-

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the District Commission has without any basis allowed the complaint when there was no evidence to substantiate the complainant’s contention.  The complainant has not been able to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. The complaint has alleged that the goods worth Rs.3,50,000/- were stolen but she has not been able to place authentic bills of those articles in order to substantiate her submission and even then the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by her.  Though the District Commission has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation to the complainant but the basis on which the said amount has been awarded is not explained.  He therefore, argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

9.                The opposite parties have raised a specific plea that the complainant had not booked his belongings with the Railway Administration and therefore she is not entitled for compensation as per section 100 of the Indian Railways Act. The opposite parties have taken defence of Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, which reads thus:                                        

“Responsibilities as carrier of luggage- A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt thereof, and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge unless, it is also proved that the loss, destruction,                                          

damage or deterioration was due to negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any its servant.”

 

-6-

Aforesaid section clearly stipulates that in case of luggage which is carried by the passenger, the railway administration shall not be responsible for its loss, unless it is proved that the said loss was due to negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servant.

10.              We find that there are categorical allegations of the complainant that running TC staff had allowed waitlisted passengers and unauthorized persons in the compartment, in which the complainant was travelling.  The District Commission has accordingly held that there were unauthorized persons in the said coach.  It has been alleged that no GRP/RPF personnel were present in the subject coach.  The opposite parties have not specifically challenged the allegations of the complainant.  The District Commission has rightly held that no affidavit of the coach attendant or police personnel has been put forward by the opposite parties in order to substantiate their submission and to controvert the complainant’s allegations.

11.              The complainant in her complaint has specifically alleged that her luggage was kept under the berth and was chained and locked by her. Despite that the luggage was stolen.  It is the duty of the railway administration to ensure safety of its passengers and no unauthorized entry should be permitted in the reserved coach. Looking at the facts of the case, we are of a considered view that the opposite parties cannot take shelter of

-7-

Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act as aforesaid and escape from their liability. 

12.              In view of the aforesaid, we find that the District Commission has rightly held that the opposite parties have not been able to prove that they are not deficient in service in the instant matter. Now considering the question of enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Commission, we find that the District Commission relying on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Union of India Vas Ajay Kumar Agrawal 2015 (3) CPR 478 (NC) has awarded certain amount towards compensation to the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission in Ajay Kumar Agrawal (supra) has awarded compensation on account of negligence and deficiency in service committed by the TTE in the reserved coach and not on the basis of amount of goods which were stolen. The District Commission applying the aforesaid ratio has awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, keeping in view the evidence put forward by the complainant in support of her contention. We do not find any ground for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Commission.  

13.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of a considered view that the District Commission has rightly held the opposite parties deficient in service.  We do not find any ground for interference in the impugned and the impugned order is hereby affirmed.

-8-

14.              As a result, both appeals, filed by the complainant and the opposite parties respectively are dismissed with no order as to costs.

15.              This order be placed in First Appeal No.2026/2017 and a copy be placed in First Appeal No.71/2018.

 

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

                         PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER