Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/2218

SMT ALPANA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

MAHAVIR BHATNAGAR

01 Jan 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2182 OF 2019

 (Arising out of order dated 21.10.2019 passed in C.C.No.114/2016 by District Commission, Satna)

 

INDIAN RAIL THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER,

WESTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, JABALPUR & ORS.                                  …          APPELLANTS.

 

             Versus

                 

ALPANA SINGH                                                                                               …         RESPONDENT.

          

                                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 2218 OF 2019

 (Arising out of order dated 21.10.2019 passed in C.C.No.114/2016 by District Commission, Satna)

 

SMT. ALPANA SINGH.                                                                                    …          APPELLANT.

 

             Versus

                 

UNION OF INDIA, WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY

JABALPUR AND OTHERS                                                                                …         RESPONDENTS.

                           

BEFORE:

 

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

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                                     

                                      O R D E R

 

01.01.2024

            Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the complainant.

            Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite parties-Railways.

                                   

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        Aforesaid appeals arise out of the order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.114/2016 therefore they are taken up together and are being disposed of this common order. Facts are taken from First Appeal No.2182/2019 unless otherwise stated.

2.                First Appeal No. 2182/2019 has been filed by the opposite parties-Railways for setting aside the impunged order whereas First Appeal

-2-

No. 2218/2019 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation.

3.                The facts of the case in short are that the complainant along with her brother-in-law was travelling on berth no.67 & 70 in coach no. S-3 coach of train number 15231 Mujaffarpur-Gondiya Express on 16.07.2014 from Gazipur to Durg. It is submitted that the ticket checking staff had permitted general and waiting ticket holder passengers and there was no security person available with the result, the bag of the complainant contained clothes, ornaments and cash was stolen by some identified persons on 17.07.2014. The complainant lodged FIR at GRP Police Anooppur. It is alleged that due to negligence of the opposite parties, her bag containing valuable articles was stolen. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the Railways, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and costs. 

4.                The opposite parties in their reply before the District Commission raised objection that before filing complaint against the Railway notice under Section 80 CPC ought to have been given and after two months, the complainant has to file the complaint. The complainant did not produce the bills of goods stolen worth Rs.5,00,000/-. When the bag was stolen, neither the complainant make any noise nor informed the co-passengers. She also did not inform Satna GRP or Station Master, Satna,

-3-

TTE or guard during journey, thus her complaint appears suspicious. The incident is not of theft but is of robbery and the said incident falls under Clause (2) of Section 123(d), Section 124(a) & Section 125 of Railways Act, 1989. The bag was stolen because of complainant’s own negligence. The complainant also did not lodge complaint in complaint book available with the guard. During journey, liability of safety of belongings is of the passenger. It is further submitted that the Railway administration is not responsible for loss as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 if the luggage is not booked. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,008/- to the complainant with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 10.05.2016 till payment, within a period of two months. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/- is also directed to be paid within two months.

6.                Heard learned counsel for the parties.  Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the District Commission has committed material irregularity in not appreciating the fact that FIR clearly reveals that the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the value of ornaments such as mangalsutra, chain,

 

-4-

finger ring etc which she was carrying as she was returning after attending marriage in laws place, whereas the District Commission has awarded only

Rs.50,008/-. He therefore argued that the amount of compensation be enhanced and the relief as sought in complaint be awarded.

8.                Learned counsel for the Railways argued that in the complaint, the complainant has stated that she lodged FIR at GRP Anooppur and theft occurred at Anooppur. The complainant is not resident of Satna nor she has purchased ticket from Satna, therefore, the District Commission, Satna has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He argued that the District Commission has not considered this important aspect that under Section 100 of the Railways Act, the Railways cannot be held responsible for unbooked luggage. Except the complainant no other passengers of the said coach made a complaint that unauthorized persons were allowed in the coach to travel. He argued that the District Commission did not consider that the Railways did not charge for the luggage of passengers and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.  The complainant did not make it clear that whether she has chained and locked her luggage. The complaint herself is negligent in not keeping her belongings. The complainant has not been able to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. He therefore, argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

-5-

9.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the record as also the impugned order we find that the complainant along with her complaint has filed her affidavit and documents. The complainant nowhere in her complaint, has mentioned that she placed her bag with chained and locked beneath the berth. The complainant has not been able to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties-railways. The complainant has alleged that articles worth Rs.5,00,000/- kept in her bag were stolen, but she has not been able to place authentic bills of those articles in order to substantiate her submission.  We find that the District Commission has without any basis allowed the complaint when there was no evidence to substantiate the complainant’s contention and allegations. The complainant should be vigilant about her belongings. In such circumstances, when the complainant herself was not vigilant in keeping her luggage safe, how can the Railways be held responsible?

10.              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.”

 

 

 

-6-

11.              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, we are of a considered view that the District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint filed by the complainant as the complainant has no case on merits.

12.              In view of the above discussion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

13.              In the result, First Appeal No. 2182/2019 filed by Railways is hereby allowed and First Appeal No.2218/2019 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

14.              This order be retained in First Appeal No. 2182/2019 and a copy be placed in First Appeal No.2218/2019.

 

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

                Acting President                     Member