Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/22/455

RAVIRAJ BAHADUR SAXENA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SH.S.K.SINGH

25 Jan 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 455 OF 2022

 (Arising out of order dated 25.04.2022 passed in C.C.No.541/2014 by District Commission, Bhopal-1)

 

RAVIRAJ BAHADUR SAXENA.                                                                       …          APPELLANT.

 

             Versus

                 

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH

GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN

CENTRAL RAILWAY, JABALPUR & ANOTHER                                              …         RESPONDENT.

                                      

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                

                    

                                      O R D E R

25.01.2024

 

            Shri S. K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Indrajee Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

            Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

                                   

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.541/2014, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                The facts of the case in short are that the complainant along with his two friends was travelling on berth number 42, 43 and 45 of Coach No.S-3 in Udaypur-Indore train for Bhopal. At Neemuch Station when he woke up he found that his Aristocrat suitcase which was chained and locked was stolen by some person after cutting the chain. The aforesaid suitcase

-2-

contained Rs.32,000/- cash, ATM Card, Voter ID, driving license, registration of car no. MP-04 CB-4464, mobile phone with reliance SIM, two pair of pant-shirt, two spects, clothes of children and a pair of shoe of bata company. He lodged FIR at GRP, Neemuch but no action was taken. It is alleged that during journey, to keep the passengers and their belongings safe is the responsibility of the Railways which was not done and therefore there is deficiency in service on their part. He therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the Railways, approached the District Commission, seeking cost of articles missing Rs.81,800/-. 

3.                The opposite parties in their reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant did not give any notice under Section 80 of CPC 1908.  Under Section 106, Railways Act, 1989 no person is entitled to any claim unless he got served notice on Railways. Under Clause 103(20) Railway Manual and under Section 100 of Railways Act, 1989, Railway administration is not responsible for loss if the luggage is not booked and unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on part of the Railways or any of its employees. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. 

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has erred in holding that the complainant did not book

-3-

his luggage with the railways and did not produce any receipt, and the complainant was travelling along with his luggage. He argued that the District Commission has passed the impugned order against the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Sanjeev Dilsukhraj Dave & Anr I (2003) CPJ 72 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Union of India & Ors Vs J. S. Kunwar 2010 NCJ 380 (NC)

6.                Learned counsels for the Railways argued that the complainant failed to demonstrate that where incident took place and when he had no information about the incident, how can held the railways responsible. He argued that there is no responsibility of Railways to secure the luggage and belongings of the passengers unless it is booked. As per Section 100 of the Railways Act, the Railways is not responsible in the present case. He argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the record as also the impugned order we find that it is the complainant’s own case that he was sleeping at the time of theft took place, therefore, he cannot have personal knowledge that when and where theft took place. It is only in Neemuch when he woke up he came to know that his suitcase was missing.  On perusal of FIR we find that in the FIR he suspected on the passenger who was travelling from Udaipur to Nagda on berth no.48 in the same coach deboarded the train in between.  She has

-4-

also not mentioned that from which berth the subject suitcase was stolen.  The complainant has not made any allegations against the railway authorities that the concerned TTE allowed unauthorized passengers in the said coach and there were no railway staff of RPF personnel. The complainant has not been able to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties-railways. The complainant did not make any complaint to the TTE, Guard or coach attendant during journey. The complainant should be vigilant about his belongings. The complainant has not been able to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-Railways. We find that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint when there was no evidence to substantiate the complainant’s contention. In such circumstances, when the complainant himself was not vigilant in keeping his belongings safe, how can the Railways be held responsible?

8.                The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in Sanjeev Dilsukhraj Dave (supra) and J. S. Kunwar (supra) are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in those cases, it was proved that the Railway Administration allowed unauthorized passengers in the reserved coach.  However, in the case in hand presence of unauthorized persons neither alleged nor established. On the contrary in

 

-5-

the FIR he suspected on the co-passenger. In such circumstances, the Railways cannot be held responsible. 

9.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in Station Superintendent & Anr Vs Surender Bhola III (2023) CPJ 11 (SC) has held:

“We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way a deficiency in service by the Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held liable.”

 

10.              In such circumstances, when the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service against the railways, therefore, on merits as also in view of the recent pronouncement of Apex Court, in Surender Bhola (supra) we are of a considered view that the District Commission has nowhere erred in dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant as the complainant has no case on merits.

11.              In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is hereby affirmed.

12.              In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

                        (A. K. Tiwari)                 (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

                   Acting President                        Member