DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/99

Date of Institution : 09.02.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 09.09.2022

Mr. Darshan Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh R/o 172, Gurbux Nagar, Chabhal Road,      …Complainant

Versus

Union of India through Ministry of Railways Service through Divisional Manager Northern Railways Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur Served through Chief Station Master, Northern Railways, Railway Station, Amritsar.  

…Opposite Party

Complaint U/S 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Saurabh Sharma Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Navjeewan Sharma Adv counsel for the opposite party. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against Union of India through Ministry of Railways Service, Amritsar.  (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant alongwith his wife boarded the Swaran Shatabdi Express from New Delhi Railway Station on 24.9.2016  when he reached India for traveling to Amritsar in the reserved coach having reserved seat No. 11-C and 12-C, some unlawful entrant into reserved coach took away the belongings of the complainant. The complainant had a reserved seats in the reserved coach where only persons with the reserved seat can enter and no other person without reservation could enter. Some unauthorized person took away the bag of the complainant in which many articles and his personal belongings were packed including one laptop ASUS Branch and I-pad Apple with other accessories were taken away by the said person the costs of which was Rs. 1,00,000/-. 

3. It is further alleged that the complainant brought the matter to the notice of the Station Master, New Delhi Railway Station as no TTE was available in the reserved coach to check the unauthorized entry and receive the complaint so complainant on reaching Amritsar Railway Station took the matter with the Station Master and ultimately got lodged the DDR on 29.9.2016 at GRP PS Amritsar. The act of the opposite party in not keeping the passenger's travel safety amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- being loss of the articles alongwith interest from 24.9.2016 till realization.  

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay adequate litigation expenses.

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that Railway Administration does not undertake responsibility for personal belongings carried in personal custody of the complainant and it was his own responsibility to safeguard his personal items. The complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties as Divisional Manager, Northern Railway Ferozepur Division has been impleaded wrongly in the present complaint. The alleged theft has taken place at New Delhi so this Forum does not jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Further, as per Section 6 of Indian Railway Act 1989 Railway has no liability for unbooked items. In this case neither the suit case/articles were booked with the railway nor any help was sought from the Railway for safe carrying. As per Rule 506 of Coaching Tariff No. 24 no liability can be fastened for loss particularly in case of unbooked items carried in personal custody. Further, the allegations made by the complainant fall under the criminal act so present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Further, no information was given to coach TTE by complainant till the completion of journey. Even New Delhi and Amritsar are large stations having number of officials even then it is not case of the complainant that information was given to proper authority i.e. General Railway Policy who help the complainant to lodged the FIR with the concerned police authority. Further, no evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove that they were carrying with the stated baggage/articles during the journey. The service of railways was hired for traveling and it was duly provided so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

5. On merits, it is submitted that from the facts given in the complaint shows that complainant himself was negligent qua the possession of stolen articles. Rest of the contents of the complaint are denied by the opposite party. However, it is submitted that As per Railway Act, Railway administration is not responsible for any loss, destruction, damage of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt. The complainant neither booked the luggage with the railway nor disclosed the possession of any such valuable articles to any of the railway official. There is no liability of the railway. Lastly, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. To prover his case the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of letter dated 24.9.2016 Ex.C-2, copy of DDR Ex.C-3, copy of document Ex.C-4, copy of electronic reservation slip Ex.C-5, copy of electronic reservation slip Ex.C-6, copy of ticket receipt Ex.C-7, copy of itinerary receipt Ex.C-8, copy of untraced report  Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Monu Luthra Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.   

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file.

9. Before going into the merits of the present complaint firstly we decide the specific objection taken by the opposite party that as the alleged theft has taken place at New Delhi so this Forum does not have jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

10. We have perused the application given by the complainant to the SHO, GRP, Railway Station, Amritsar Ex.C-2 in which it is specifically mentioned that on 24.9.2016 when the complainant was boarding his reserved seat 11-C in Swaran Shatabadi New Delhi to Amritsar then his wife's luggage was lying at in front of 12-C and when the complainant was putting the goods in the coach then immediately somebody has taken his bag. This application duly proved on the file that the luggage of the complainant was stolen at Railway Station, New Delhi, so cause of action also arose at New Delhi. The present complaint has been filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 i.e. before commencement of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

11. It is relevant to refer Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as:-

“(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.-

(a) opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or 

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

12. In the present case also no cause of action arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so we are of the view that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case titled Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. Reported in 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) Page-01 in which Hon'ble Apex Court held as under.-

“ A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17- Jurisdiction-Appellants godown caught fire at Ambala- Claim petition under Section 17 filed before Consumer Forum, UT, Chandigarh-Insurance policy was taken at Ambala and claim for compensation was made at Ambala- No part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh-Hence, Consumer Forum, UT Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(2)- Expression Branch Office- Meaning thereof-Expression branch office means the branch office where cause of action has arisen.

C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(2)- Cause of action- Meaning thereof- Expression Cause of action means bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability.”

This citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is fully applicable to the present matter as in the present matter also no part of cause of action has arisen at Amritsar as mentioned above, so this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. 

14. The opposite party also taken specific objection in written version that complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. It is admitted by the complainant and also proved on the file that the theft has taken place at New Delhi and no cause of action arose at Amritsar, so in our view The Chief Station Master, Railway Station, New Delhi is a necessary party to the present complaint but complainant has not impleaded him as an opposite party in the present complaint, so the complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary party.

15. In view of the above discussion, as this Forum at Amritsar has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and same is also bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties, so without going into the merits of the the present complaint same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        9th Day of September 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member