Delhi

StateCommission

CC/110/2018

VIDYA BHUSHAN RAWAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

THOMAS OOMMEN

05 Mar 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Hearing:05.03.2018

 

                                                                                                        Date of Decision:07.03.2018

 

COMPLAINT NO-110/2018

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Vidya Bhushan Rawat,

SRB-32A, Shipra Riviera

Gyan Khand-III, Indira Puram,

Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh)                                   ...Complainant

                                                                                      

VERSUS

 

 

1. Union of India

Through the Chairman

Railway Board, Railway Bhawan,

New Delhi

2. General Manager,

Northern Railway, Baroda House,

New Delhi

3. East Frontier Railway

(Through its Divisional

Railway manager)

Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh                                    ...Opposite Parties

 

 

HON’BLE  SH. O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

 

 1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                               Yes

 

 

Present:    Sh. Thomas Oomen, Counsel for the Complainant.

                None for the OPs.

 

 

PER: SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (G)

 

Judgment

1.                 Sh. Vidya Bhushan Rawat, resident of Ghaziabad(UP) has filed this complaint before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short complainant) against the Railway Board, Northern Railways and East frontier Railway, hereinafter referred to as opposite parties, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OP in not providing sufficient protection to the Complainant while he was travelling from Delhi to Deoria by Amarpali Express in AC-2 Tier which train he boarded on 09.08.2016, leading to the theft of his belonging causing loss of his lap tap bag containing apart from the lap tap, a lot of material of importance from the point of his profession.
2.           Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.
3.           The complainant, Director of Social Development Foundation stated to be an organisation constituted for the welfare of the poor and SCs/ STs, for attending to his professional work, had to visit Deoria and for this purpose he boarded the Amarpali Express on 09.08.2016 at Old Delhi Railway Station. He was booked in AC-2Tier compartment. He was carrying with him a briefcase, laptop bag and a few books.
4.           On 10.08.2016 around 3:00a.m. the complainant noticed that his laptop bag containing the laptop, two external drives of 1 TB each, four pen drives, one Tata Docomo dongle, card readers, several documentary films, four credit cards, one debit card and the vast data of videos and his research of past 20 years, were missing. TTE and the Coach Attendant were informed of the theft having been committed but they took no steps to look into the matter. A complaint with the GRP at Gorakhpur Railway Station was lodged and consequently FIR bearing no 6971 dated 10.08.2016 was registered. The complainant has not made any averment about the action taken on the FIR so registered.
5.           The complainant had thereafter sent a detailed representation to the General Manager, Northern Railway in this behalf on 21.12.2017 which is admittedly fifteen months after the incident, demanding for an amount of Rs.27,06,000/- since the Railway Police, had failed to move into the matter, investigate the case and bring the culprits to book and consequently remained negligent in the discharge of their duty. The complainant has further alleged that the callousness and negligence on the part of the OP is aggravated when the passengers loose their valuable belongings either on account of indifference on the part of the railway staff or by their connivance. In either event the OP cannot escape from its liability for failure on its part to protect the luggage and belongings of the passengers travelling in the train.
6.           The complainant has detailed the items lost and the monetary value of each item which are reproduced below:

 

One American bag pack                            : 4000

Two Hard Drive of 1000 GB each            : 12,000

Four Pen Drives                                         : 3,000

Net Connector                                            : 1000

Macbook Pro                                              : 75,000

Mobile charger                                           : 1,000

Power Bank                                               : 2,500

Cannon Camera Data                                : 1,500

Data card reader                                      : 1000

Data cable and other accessories           : 5,000

                                               

                                                          Total: 1,06,000

 

7.                 The complainant has also furnished details of the data loss as also the loss suffered by him which is indicated below:

 

1. Nearly 50,000 photographs of various conferences, meetings as well as field visits in different parts of the world as well as India for the past ten years. Approximate cost Rs.5,00,000/.
2. Six videos of interview with leading Indian personalities in diaspora in UK in June where I went in June 2016. These Six interviews were conducted at London, Birmingham, Wolverthompton, Bedford, Southall and Manchester. The complainant is doing a historical documentation of close associate of Dr. B.R. Amebedkar and their life journey for which he visited United Kingdom and interviewed important persons at different places.: Approximate cost : 10,00,000/-
3. Three documentaries which were shot in Bundelkhand on Hunger among Kols, the Mushahars in Eastern Uttar Pradesh and one the issue of Bhagana in Haryana which had five years footage got lost. Documentation of the various on-going movements in India. Rs.5,00,000/-

 

Mental Agony over losing all aforesaid items: Rs.10 Lakhs

 

Litigation expenses Rs. 50,000/-

 

Claim Amount: Grand Total of approximate loss

                                                                                                                                      Rs.31,56,000/-

 

8.                 Since no response was received from the OPs the complainant has filed this complaint before this Commission, praying for the relief as under:

 

1. Allow the present complaint by awarding the claim amount of Rs.31,56,000/- mentioned in para 9 above
2. Award/ grant interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
3. Award / grant cost of the present litigation in favour of the complainant.
4. And pass such other or further order/orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.

 

9.                 The matter was listed before us for admission hearing on 05.03.208 when the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant advanced his arguments. We have perused the records of the case and given a careful consideration to the subject matter.
10. In the first instance we would examine whether this Commission enjoys the territorial jurisdiction to hear and dispose of this complaint. For this purpose we may advert to the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The said provision posits as under:

 

A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction:

1. The OP or each 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.
2. 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 each either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution
3. The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

 

11. The OP in effect in this complaint is OP No. 3. OP No 1 and OP 2 though arrayed as parties are not in substance the authorities to defend. The OP 3 in the given case happens to be the Divisional Railway, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, as the cause of action by the admission of the complainant himself arose in Uttar Pradesh and not in Delhi. If no cause of action accrued in Delhi, this commission would surely lack the territorial jurisdiction to hear this case. Mere fact that OP 1 and OP 2 are stationed at Delhi would not confer this commission the jurisdiction as that would depend on the place where the cause of action arose which in the given case, as stated above, arose in Uttar Pradesh. Having regard to this, one has to approach the Commission in Uttar Pradesh for the redressal of the grievances if any.
12. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Melanie Das vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in I(2014) CPJ 302(NC) is pleased to hold as under:

                                                                     

“Mere existence of branch office of the Company would not ipso facts be determinative of territorial jurisdiction of State Commission. Cause of action also must arise at that place.”

 

13. The State Commission of Chhattisgarh in the matter of Mahendra Travels vs. K. Giri Babu as reported in III (2013) CPJ 158(Chhatt) has held as under:

“Ticket purchased for travelling from Jagdalpur to Bhilai Power House. Bag was found missing in Durg District . Cause of action would be deemed to have arisen at Durg. Fora at Durg has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.”

 

14.  Having regard to the discussion done and the law laid down, we are of the considered view that this Commission lacks the territorial jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
15. There is another aspect to look into in the subject matter. This Commission in terms of Section 17(1) of the Act enjoys the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of goods or service and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs 20 lakh but does not exceed Rs One Crore. The relevant provision of the Act is reproduced below:

 

Section 17- Jurisdiction of the State Commission: Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction

To entertain –

1. Complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed (exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore)

 

16. The complainant has given an account of the relief claimed which is more than Rs 20 Lakh without furnishing relevant and necessary documents justifying the claim. We are of the considered view that the loss suffered by the complainant by his own admission is of Rs. 1,06,000/- in which case this Commission keeping in view the provision of the Act detailed above, would be handicapped to hear this case. Distt. Fora is the fora which has the jurisdiction to hear this case. In our view the value appears to have been inflated only to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Commission.
17. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Consumer Welfare Association is WEBB Hill Resort Corporation as reported in II (2014) CPJ 658(NC) is pleased to hold as under:

“OP had agreed to develop project, construct bunglow and deliver its possession to complainant in consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/-. There exist no justification in adding figure of Rs 1,03,60,000/- to value of relief claimed by complainants particularly when agreement with OP was only in respect of bunglow constructed in 60 Sq Mr. Even as per valuation report value of relief sought in the complaint is not more than Rs 24 Lakh. It is a clear case of inflating value of relief with a view to bring complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission which is not permissible in law”

 

18. In this view of the matter this complaint is not entertainble both on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction and therefore we order return of the complaint granting liberty to the complainant to file before the fora enjoying the jurisdiction therefor. We order accordingly. No cost.
19. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. File be consigned to record.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                 (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (GENERAL)                                                                            MEMBER (JUDICIAL)