DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.888/2006
Sh. Prakash Mani Tripathi
Tripathi Bhawan, Civil Lines,
Gorakhpur, U.P. ….Complainant
Versus
Union of India
through General Manager
Northern Railway, Baroda House,
New Delhi
Date of Institution : 16.06.04/18.12.06 Date of Order : 25.10.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The complaint was filed on 16.06.04 before another Forum. Thereafter, the same was transferred to this Forum vide order dated 18.12.06.
The Complainant’s case, in brief, is that he had got reservation in AC first class to travel by 2554 Dn. Vaishali Express from New Delhi to Gorakhpur on 09.06.02; that he boarded the train on platform No.11 at New Delhi at around 7:30 p.m. and deposited his suit case which had a deep green cloth cover in the cabin; that just after the train started at 7:45 p.m. and left New Delhi Railway Station, the Complainant found that his suit case was missing from the cabin; that he immediately reported the loss to the conductor and lodged a report in writing with GRP, Aligarh which is the first stoppage for the Vaishali Express after it leaves New Delhi Railway Station. According to him, the Complainant had ’32 bore pistol No.A-0409 manufactured by Indian Ordnance Depot (license No. NDTR 060264) kept in a leather case, personal clothes, medicines and other articles of daily use total costing Rs.1,50,000/-; that the first class AC cabin was pre-reserved in the name of the Complainant and as such no outsider could have gained entry in the cabin without the conductor/railway staff’s permission/ connivance and, thus, the loss was caused due to gross indifference, negligence, overt and covert acts of omission and commission on the part of the OP and its staff for which the OP is solely responsible. He also lodged a written complaint on 09.06.02 but to no effect. Hence, he has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to pay to him Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest @ 12% from 09.06.2002 till the date of payment, Rs.1 lac as damages for the inconvenience and harassment caused to him due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and to award cost.
OP in its written statement has admitted that the Complainant had the AC First Class ticket. However, it is denied that the Complainant was carrying any suitcase covered with deep green cloth or was carrying any pistol or the value of the goods was Rs.1,50,000/. Carelessness on the part of the Railway Staff has been denied. It is submitted that the matter was investigated and the Complainant was duly informed through post. It is pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as per section 100 of the Railway Act. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the Written Statement.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and has relied on the documents Ex.CW-1/1 to Ex.CW-1/5. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Shelly Srivastava, Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager/Plg. has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP. However, the OP has not relied on any document.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have also heard the Counsel for Complainant. However, none has appeared to advance arguments on behalf of the OP despite opportunities given in this behalf.
It is an admitted fact that the Complainant had got one AC first class ticket reserved to travel by 2554 Dn. Vaishali Express from New Delhi to Gorakhpur on 09.06.02 and he boarded the train at New Delhi Railway Station at around 7:30 p.m. According to the Complainant, when the train started at around 7:45 p.m. and left New Delhi Railway Station, he found that his suitcase which had a deep green cloth cover in the cabin containing ’32 bore pistol, personal belongings and medicines was missing from his pre-reserved cabin. Ex. CW-1/1 is the copy of the police report lodged by the Complainant with GRP, Aligarh junction in which the description of the goods which were kept in the suitcase had been given. Ex. CW-1/2 is the copy of the FIR lodged by son and/or daughter of the Complainant at NDLS on 09.06.02 itself on the basis of the communication received from the Complainant from the train. Ex. CW-1/3 is the copy of untrace report filed by PS NDLS. According to the OP, the matter was got investigated and the Complainant was informed through post. However, we must say at once that the OP has not filed the copy of any investigation report or the proof that any such information had infact been sent to the Complainant through post or otherwise. During the investigation, NDLS police did not find the complaint lodged by the Complainant to be bogus or baseless. According to the Complainant, he is a retired Deputy Chief of the Army Staff and a former Member of Parliament. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disbelieve him.
Even otherwise, in the absence of any ill will or hostility pleaded by the OP on behalf of the Complainant we are not inclined to believe that the Complainant had infact lodged a false complaint or that he was not carrying any such suitcase containing the abovesaid articles with him. Hence we hold that it has been proved on the record that his suitcase which had deep green cloth had infact been stolen from the reserved AC first class cabin of the Complainant. It is a matter of common knowledge that the military officials or Ex-servicemen generally carry their goods in suitcases /briefcases which has a deep green cloth cover. Ex.CW-1/5 is the copy of receipt which has been filed by the Complainant to prove that he had purchased a new ‘.32 Revolver for a sum of Rs.62,117.00 from Field Gun Factory, Kanpur on 08.11.04. This fact itself proves that his previous Revolver ‘.32 bore had infact been stolen and he had to purchase a new Revolver on 08.11.04. In Ex. CW-1/5, the Army License has been mentioned as TR060764 which is different from the Army License number given in the complaint but we have not been made known of the fact that the Army License No. cannot be changed with the purchase of a new Arm or a Revolver. Therefore, this is not a serious Lacuna in the Complainant’s case.
Section 100 of the Railway Act does make the Railway Department responsible for the loss suffered by the passengers if the loss has been caused due to negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servant. In the present case, it is the uncontroverted but proved case that the Complainant was travelling in a pre-reserved first class AC cabin which could not have any access to any outsider. It means that the entry to his cabin could be gained by a third person with the negligence and/or connivance of the Railway Staff. Thus, the bar of Section 100 is not attracted in the present case. In this regard, we rely on a judgment rendered by the National Commission in R.P. No. 4723/2013- Indian Railways V/s Anchal Garg, decided on 06.01.14. The law laid down in Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay Vs. UOI II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC) also fortifies our view. Therefore, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service.
The Complainant has, however, not lead any cogent evidence to show that total price of the articles/goods lying in the suitcase was Rs.1,50,000/-. He had purchased a new Revolver in the year 2004 for Rs.62,117.00. He has not said anything about the price of the stolen Revolver. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the OP to pay Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) towards loss, compensation and litigation charges to the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay the said amount of Rs.75,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 16.06.04 till its realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 25.10.2016.
