Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/68/2016

A.Reddy Chinmayaa, S/o. A.S. Elango - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India, Rep. By The Chairman, Railway Board, - Opp.Party(s)

P.Muni Reddy, B.Sekhara Reddy

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 11.07.2016

Order Date:31.03.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.68/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

A. Reddy Chinmayaa,

S/o. A.S.Elango,

D.No.18-1-656, Bhavani Nagar,

Tirupati – 517 501.                                                                          … Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         Union of India,

            Rep. by The Chairman,

            Railway Board,

            Rail Bhavan,

            Boat Club,

            New Delhi – 110 001.

 

2.         The South Central Railway,

            Rep. by The General Manager,

            Rail Nilayam,

            Secunderabad.                                                                      …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on   .03.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.P.Muni Reddy; Sri.B.Sekhara Reddy, counsel for complainant, and Sri.K.Ramanathan, counsel for opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –11 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant  against the opposite parties 1 and 2 for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,206/- to the complainant and to pass such other further reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

            2. The brief averments of the complaint are:- that the complainant reserved his berth in AC 3-Tier in Tirupati – Howrah train No.12864, to be travelled on 18.05.2015. He was allotted berth No.41 (LB) in B1 comportment. He boarded the train at about 01.30 hours in Tirupati on 18.05.2015 and occupied the berth allotted to him.

            2.  That the complainant awakened at Gudur and found his luggage was missing. He searched for the luggage, but in vain. He got down the train at Nellore (next stop) and lodged complaint with Railway Police, Nellore, and it was registered as Crime No.70/2015 u/s 379 IPC and FIR is issued. While his luggage was committed theft, his luggage contains 1) HP ENVY Laptop-1, 2) Motorola 2G Cell Phone -1, and 3) Cash Rs.1,000/-, altogether worth Rs.90,499/-. He sought information under Section-6 of RTI Act through his counsel to know the result of police investigation. That the counsel for complainant received information from the Station House Officer of Nellore Railway Police Station on 29.04.2016 that the accused in the case was arrested on 12.04.2016 and Motorola 2G Cell Phone was recovered from his possession. The remaining property i.e. HP Laptop was not recovered as it was sold by the accused to somebody. Other items viz. ATM Card, ADM Cards and Adhaar Card are said to have been thrown away into bushes and they were not recovered. The Motorola 2G Cell Phone deposited by the police in the Court of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Nellore, and the same was returned to the complainant in the month of June 2016. The opposite parties are responsible for the loss of luggage of the complainant, as they failed to provide adequate security. Hence the complaint.

            3.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a common written version denying the complaint averments and further contended that opposite party No.1 is not a necessary party as per Section-2(32) r/w Section-4 of Railway Act 1989. Even according to CPC all the suits against Railways have to be filed only against the Union of India represented by the concerned General Manager of the Zonal Railways. That there is no evidence that the complainant had secured his luggage after boarding the train No.12864 on 18.05.2015 in B-1 coach on berth No.41 at Tirupati and detrained at Nellore to lodge the complaint. Sri.M.Babu, the Chief Ticket Inspector belongs to Guntakal Division of South Central Railway had manned the coach from Tirupati to Vijayawada. The said employee stated that there is no unauthorized passenger in his coach and all the doors are in closed condition and no passenger informed him about theft. As per para No.506.1 of Indian Railway Coaching Tariff No.26 Part-1(volume-1) regarding luggage in charge of Air Conditioned class passengers, “passengers are requested to take into a carriage only such small articles of personnel luggage as are required for their own use on the journey and can be placed in the carriage without inconveniencing other passengers or reducing the available accommodation in the carriage for sitting / sleeping or free movement” and all articles taken into carriage are carried at the risk of the owners.

            4.  that the complainant had not produced any piece of evidence to show that he had declared and booked his luggage with railways by paying necessary amounts. Railways liability arises only in the case of booked luggage in terms of Section-100 of the Railway Act 1989. No suit, prosecution or the legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government, any Railway Administration, a Railway Servant etc. Railway Police, Nellore, is necessary party. In a similar case in SLP (C) No.34738-34739/2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the claim for compensation on account of missing articles from Train No.3007 on 02.07.2013 in RP No.18/2008.

            5.  That there is no proof that the complainant boarded the train at Tirupati. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. That this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            6.  The complainant filed his chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. One G.Chandrasekhar, Divisional Commercial Manager, Vijayawada Division, South Central Railway, filed his evidence affidavit and reported no documents. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments and also advanced oral arguments.

           

 

7.  Now the points for consideration are:- 

            (i)  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

            (iii) To what relief?

            8.  Point No.(i):- the learned counsel for the complainant while advancing arguments stated that when any passenger booked his ticket in A/c class, it is for the opposite parties i.e. Raailway Department to provide adequate security to safeguard the articles / luggage of the passengers traveling therein, but in this case, Ex.A1 clearly shows that the complainant booked his ticket from Tirupati to Howrah in Train No.12864 Yeshwanthpur Howrah Express, his journey is to be commenced on 18.05.2015. Accordingly, he boarded the train at about 1.30 hours on 18.05.2015, while travelling he wake-up at Gudur and found his luggage was missing. He searched for his luggage, but in vain, by the time he reached Nellore, which is next station to Gudur, he got down there and lodged complaint under Ex.A2 before Railway Police, Nellore. On his complaint a case was registered in Crime No.70/2015 under Section-379 IPC, FIR was issued and the Railway Police took the investigation. That the complainant sought for information about the result of investigation through his counsel, the Railway Police informed the counsel for complainant that on 12.04.2016 the accused was arrested, Motorola mobile phone of the complainant was recovered and other items i.e. HP laptop, ATM Card, Adhar Card and ADM Cards could not be recovered. That the said Motorola cell phone was produced before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Nellore, and the same was returned to the complainant, as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. If the opposite parties provided adequate security, the theft could not have been occurred, therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation, cost of the Laptop and cost of the train fare paid by the complainant and also to pay the costs of the litigation.

            9.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties while advancing arguments contended that there is no proof that the complainant has carried Laptop, Adhar Card, ATM Card, as well as Motorola cell phone along with him. Unless the articles were registered with the Railway Department, in case of loss of such articles / luggage, the Railways will not be held liable. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint.

            10. Coming to the articles said to have been committed theft, there is discrepancy in respect of Motorola mobile phone. He has furnished two IMEI numbers of the mobile phone as 1) 359296051760560 and 2) 3592413056J, which was not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or in the evidence affidavit and written arguments of the complainant. If the said mobile phone is with dual SIM, then only 2 IMEI numbers will be available. However, since there is no claim with regard to mobile phone, no need to probe with regard to the said mobile phone.

            11.  So far as Laptop is concerned, in the complaint nowhere the Laptop number or its serial number were mentioned, similarly in his affidavit and also in chief affidavit, no such number of the Laptop or serial number of the Laptop were found place. In the complaint under Ex.A2 given before the Railway Police at Nellore, he has furnished the Laptop number as HP ENVY 15 J11TX, and its Serial Number as 5Cg413056T. In the same report dt:18.05.2015 while coming to the description of the articles subject to theft, he furnished the Laptop Number as follows HP ENVY J133TX with Sl.No. 5Cg413056T. Contrary to it Ex.A4 Tax Invoice dt:30.06.2014, under which the complainant has purchased the Laptop, the item name was mentioned as HP ENVY 15-J111TX and Sl.No.5CG413056T. So the item number i.e. device number is varies from Ex.A4 to the device number mentioned in Ex.A2 report given to police. So, whether the Laptop actually lost by the complainant or not is under suspicion When the complainant could remember IMEI of the mobile, which is in 15 digits, why he could not remember the actual device number of the Laptop, which is only in 6 digits. So, when the Laptop number is not tallied, we cannot consider his request for repayment of the cost of the Laptop. That apart when he lodged complaint, complainant lost his ATM Card, Adhar Card and Identity Card, whether he got his ATM card blocked by approaching the concerned bank is also not mentioned, and what are the efforts he made to get his identity cards and Adhar Card were also not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or in the evidence affidavit etc.  

            12.  So far as deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is concerned, their statement to the effect that the Railway’s liability arises only in case of booked luggage in terms of Section-100 of the Railway Act 1989 cannot be accepted. When the passengers are travelling in A/c comportment, necessarily an attendant will be posted for the said A/c coach to take care of that no unauthorized person should be allowed in the reserved A/c comportment. Therefore, the said version of the opposite parties cannot be accepted. The complainant filed Ex.A1 in proof of his journey from Tirupati to Howrah in YPR Express, Train No.12864 on 18.05.2015. By virtue of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the complainant has established that he has reserved his ticket in YPR Express, Train No.12864 and in Coach No.B1, Berth No.41, has been allotted to him. Accordingly he boarded the train at Tirupati. Unless his luggage has been stolen by somebody, he ought not to have forced to detrained / got down the train at Nellore and lodge complaint before the Railway Police at Nellore with regard to loss of his luggage. If it is considered that the complainant in such a situation mentioned the Laptop device number as  HP ENVY 15 J11TX,  instead of mentioning as HP ENVY 15 J111TX, what made him to mention again the device No. as HP ENVY J133TX. The report under Ex.A2 given to Railway Police Station, Nellore, is appears to be self-contradictory in respect of the device number of the Laptop. Therefore, I am unable to convince with the complainant so far as the Laptop number is concerned.

            13.  Regarding other items, which were lost such as ATM Card, ADM Cards and Adhaar Card and also a sum of Rs.1,000/-, we can fairly say that the complainant did not lodge the complaint for the purpose of getting money under the name of theft of Laptop. He simply stated that he lost cash of Rs.1,000/-. If cash is lost apart from ID Cards, ATM Card, he need not get down at Nellore Railway Station, having paid Rs.1,744/- towards journey ticket, in this regard the fairness of the complainant is to be appreciated. By virtue of Exs.A1 and A2, the complainant has established that he reserved his ticket in YPR Howrah Express bearing No.12864 from Tirupati to Howrah and he commenced journey upto Nellore and lodged complaint in connection with theft of his luggage before Railway Police, Nellore. So, with these two facts we have to believe his version provided. If the complainant could have mentioned the device number of the Laptop correctly, his claim for Laptop would have been allowed to some extent. Because of his self-contradictory statement under Ex.A2 (complaint before railway police), we have to suspect the loss of Laptop. However, due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties only, theft of the articles belongs to the complainant was occurred, that to between 1.30 p.m. and 5.30 a.m. If the opposite parties provided adequate security, certainly the theft would not have take place. Therefore, under the above circumstances we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered.

            14.  Point No.(ii):-  So far as the claim of the complainant is concerned, in the complaint the complainant made a claim for Rs.1,14,206/-. When coming to his chief affidavit, he claimed a sum of Rs.1,17,232/- without any description for the claim, that apart the complainant is not claiming the amount he lost i.e. Rs.1,000/-. In view of the discrepancies that were crept in Ex.A2 (complaint before Railway Police, Nellore), we are unable to award cost of the Laptop, as the complainant failed to establish the device number of his Laptop and the said device numbers given under Ex.A2 are self-contradictory and contrary to the device number of the Laptop mentioned in Ex.A4. That the complainant had not lodged any complaint with railway crew during the journey between Gudur and Nellore when he found his luggage was lost. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the cost of his journey ticket in a sum of Rs.1,744/-. He also entitled for the compensation for mental agony in a sum of Rs.10,000/- and also costs of the litigation in a sum of Rs.2,000/-, totaling a sum of Rs.13,744/-. Accordingly this point is answered.

            15.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the amount referred to above and complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; opposite parties 1 and 2 also directed to pay back the railway fare of Rs.1,744/- (Rupees one thousand seven hundred and forty four only) paid by the complainant on 18.05.2015 towards his journey from Tirupati to Howrah, and also opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization.                                               

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 31^st day of March, 2017.

 

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                                  

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  A. Reddy Chinmayaa (Chief Affidavit filed).                

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1:  G. Chandrasekhar (Chief Affidavit filed).                     

 

                                                                       

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s                                  

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Extract of Ticket (Photo copy). PNR No.4208197328. Dt: 18.05.2015.
	Original FIR with Original Complaint. FIR No.70/2015. Dt: 18.05.2015.
	Copy of Information from Police.   Dt: 29.04.2016.
	Quotation/Estimation Dt: 23.06.2014. Invoice of Laptop in Original. Dt: 30.06.2014.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

 

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

   

               

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.