Order No. 10 dt. 24/10/2017
The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants while travelling from Howrah to Chennai in AC coach on 9.3.15 the complainants noticed that some suspected persons were roaming in the said compartment. The complainants brought it to the notice of the TTE who assured the complainant after checking all tickets there will be no problem at all. The complainants woke up at 6-30 a.m. on 10.9.15 and after taking breakfast they purchased two cups of coffee from pantry car managed by railway authority. After drinking the coffee they became senseless and the valuable articles and money were stolen from the said coach. The railway authority was responsible for the aforesaid incident. On the basis of the said fact the complainants lodged a complaint to the concerned authority, but no action was taken for which the complainants filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the cost of the stolen articles and money, etc. totaling an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. In support of the said contention the complainants filed some documents including the railway tickets, FIR and other materials.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the case is not maintainable since the alleged incident happened between Bhubaneswar and Palasa railway station which are within the territory of East Coast Railway and o.p. no.2 is not a necessary party in this case. The o.ps. also stated that the case is not maintainable because of misjoinder / non joinder of parties as well as for want of territorial jurisdiction. Merely purchase of ticket does not confer the territorial jurisdiction for filing the instant case in this Forum. The o.ps. denied that there was no disarrangement in the reserved AC coach and some suspected persons were roaming here and there. It was specifically stated that there was no unauthorized person in coach no.A1 of Howrah-Chennai Mail. The complainants exchanged their berth no.14 with the passenger who was allotted berth no.23 which is permissible without due permission of concerned railway authority. There was no IRCTC management in the said train. It was managed by railway’s authorized contractor Satyam Caterer, but he has not been made a party in this case. So, it is not possible for o.ps. to confirm from whom the complainant had taken coffee. It was stated that the train no.12839 departed from Baleswar railway station at about 3-00 hours on 10.9.15 which comes under the jurisdiction of South Eastern Railway and thereafter the jurisdiction of East Cost Railway starts. The train arrived at Bhadrak railway station at 4-02 hours on 10.9.15 and departed at about 4-10 hours and it arrived at Cuttack railway station at about 6-22 hours and departed at about 12-40 hours. The staff of South Eastern Railway performing their duties in the said train were changed and they handed over all documents to the authority of East Cost Railway. The complainants in the complaint stated that they woke up at 6-30 a.m. and after drinking coffee they became senseless before reaching Cuttack railway station i.e. the incident took place within the jurisdiction of East Cost Railway. The o.p. railway on numerous occasions to the passengers made aware that not to take food and drink from any unknown co-passenger / unauthorized vendor and they should take care of their own belonging which were not booked with the railways and there was no negligence on the part of railways. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant was travelling in the said train on that date the incident occurred?
- Whether the o.ps. are liable for the loss sustained by the complainant?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainants argued that the complainants while travelling from Howrah to Chennai in AC coach on 9.3.15 the complainants noticed that some suspected persons were roaming in the said compartment. The complainants brought it to the notice of the TTE who assured the complainant after checking all tickets there will be no problem at all. The complainant woke up at 6-30 a.m. on 10.9.15 and after taking breakfast they purchased two cups of coffee from pantry car managed by railway authority. After drinking the coffee they became senseless and the valuable articles and money were stolen from the said coach. The railway authority was responsible for the aforesaid incident. On the basis of the said fact the complainants lodged a complaint to the concerned authority, but no action was taken for which the complainants filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the cost of the stolen articles and money, etc.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the case is not maintainable since the alleged incident happened between Bhubaneswar and Palasa railway station which are within the territory of East Coast Railway and o.p. no.2 is not a necessary party in this case. The o.ps. also stated that the case is not maintainable because of misjoinder / non joinder of parties as well as for want of territorial jurisdiction. Merely purchase of ticket does not confer the territorial jurisdiction for filing the instant case in this Forum. The o.ps. denied that there was no disarrangement in the reserved AC coach and some suspected persons were roaming here and there. It was specifically stated that there was no unauthorized person in coach no.A1 of Howrah-Chennai Mail. The complainant exchanged their berth no.14 with the passenger who was allotted berth no.23 which is permissible without due permission of concerned railway authority. There was no IRCTC management in the said train. It was managed by railway’s authorized contractor Satyam Caterer, but he has not been made a party in this case. So, it is not possible for o.ps. to confirm from whom the complainant had taken coffee. It was stated that the train no.12839 departed from Baleswar railway station at about 3-00 hours on 10.9.15 which comes under the jurisdiction of South Eastern Railway and thereafter the jurisdiction of East Cost Railway starts. The train arrived at Bhadrak railway station at 4-02 hours on 10.9.15 and departed at about 4-10 hours and it arrived at Cuttack railway station at about 6-22 hours and departed at about 12-40 hours. The staff of South Eastern Railway performing their duties in the said train were changed and they handed over all documents to the authority of East Cost Railway. The complainants in the complaint stated that they woke up at 6-30 a.m. and after drinking coffee they became senseless before reaching Cuttack railway station i.e. the incident took place within the jurisdiction of East Cost Railway. The o.p. railway on numerous occasions to the passengers made aware that not to take food and drink from any unknown co-passenger / unauthorized vendor and they should take care of their own belonging which were not booked with the railways and there was no negligence on the part of railways. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainants were travelling in AC coach in Howrah-Chennai Mail on that date. On that date while the train reached before Cuttack the complainants became senseless after taking coffee from a vendor who allegedly sold the coffee procured from pantry car maintained by IRCTC managed by the railway authority. But the railway has denied that there was no arrangement with IRCTC for managing the pantry car and it was given to a contractor. Therefore it cannot be said that the complainants took the coffee from the person belonging to the said pantry car managed by IRCTC. It is relevant to mention here that the railway on numerous occasions through advertisement also in the train clearly mentioned that the passengers should not take any food item including tea, coffee, etc. from any unknown person during the time of journey. Since the complainants did not abide by the said direction for which they had to suffer the said consequence by remaining unconscious for some period during which the alleged theft took place in respect of the articles belonging to the complainants.
The complainants did not book those articles and also the articles were not kept under lock and key with chain under the lower berths. From the materials on record it appears that there was negligent act on the part of the complainants. The o.ps. can only be held responsible if the goods are booked, but without booking those goods o.ps. cannot be held responsible. It is not possible for o.ps. to provide security of each and every persons and to provide GRP / RPF for looking after their goods carried at the time of journey.
In this respect we should rely on a decision as reported in 2007(2) CCC 124 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a verdict on false suit as ”One who comes to the court must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property grabber, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gain indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation”. On the basis of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the goods which were not booked by the passengers and for the loss of those goods, railway authority cannot be held liable. In case of journey for a A.C. compartment it is the responsibility of the passengers to take care of their goods. In view of such background of the case and the false claim made by the complainants, we hold that the case filed by the complainants has got no merit and thereby the complainants will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.512/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
