Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/311/2022

Union of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vivek Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Shailendra Kumar Saini

14 Aug 2023

ORDER

THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 311/2022

 

1. Union of India through Secretary Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi & ors.

2. General Manager, North Central Railways, Allahabad (UP)

3. Regional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Agra.

4. Station Suptd., Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

.....Appellants-opposite parties

Vs.

Vivek Kumar s/o Prem Shankar r/o Near Manav Bharat School, Neemada Gate, Bharatpur.

…...Respondent-complainant

Date of Order 14.08.2023

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee- Member(Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. Nirmal Singh Meratwal-Member(Judicial)

Present:

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Saini learned counsel for the appellants

Mr. Sunil Jain learned counsel for the respondent

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR.ATUL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, MEMBER (JUDICIAL )

 

This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties, who are officers of Indian Railways in various capacities, against the judgment of learned District Consumer Commission, Bhratpur dated 04.05.2022 passed in its Complaint Case No 158/2015 whereby the complaint filed by respondent/complainant has been allowed and all the appellants/opposite parties have been ordered to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the respondent/complainant for the articles stolen from the reserved coach during the train journey alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. date of presentation of complaint i.e. 7.4.2015. Besides this an amount of Rs. 5000/- has also been ordered to be paid collectively as compensation and litigation expenses,

 

Briefly stated the relevant facts of this case are that the respondent/complainant went to Calcutta for his business purpose and while returning from Calcutta got his berth reserved in 2^nd AC for 17.3.2015 for which he paid

3

 

Rs.3107.47. His berth no. was 11 (LB) in coach no. A 1. He boarded from Howrah Jn. and was carrying his trolley bag and laptop etc. which he put under his berth and had locked the articles with chain . At 2.30 a.m. when he was awake he saw the articles lying under the berth but upon getting at 6.50 a.m. he found that the articles were missing and were not there at its place. The complainant informed TTE Sh. Harinarayan Dey and intimated about the theft. The complainant supplied all the relevant information in the prescribed form provided by the TTE. At Mughalsarai station when the train stopped there, the complainant had given a written report to the incharge of PS GRP Mughalsarai (UP) wherein he narrated the details of the stolen articles. The receipt of the application was given to the complainant. The details of lost articles were given in para 6 of the complaint and it collectively valued Rs. 1,50,000/-. According to the complainant the theft took place due to allowing entry to unauthorized persons in the reserved coach. The complainant prayed for granting relief as prayed for in the complaint.

 

The appellants/opposite parties in their reply primarily questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the learned DCC

4

 

saying that the theft took place during journey in Bihar and the learned DCC of Gaya (Bihar) only had jurisdiction in the matter. Besides this it has also been pleaded that no notice u/s 80 CPC and Railway Act have been given. Misjoinder of parties was also pleaded. In the reply reference has been made to clause 506 (1) of Indian Railway Conference Coaching rate list no. 26 wherein it has been mentioned that all the articles would remain in possession of the passenger and the responsibility of these articles shall lie upon the passenger himself. The plea of complainant about allowing unauthorized persons in the reserved coach has also been denied. As such denying the averments of the complaint the appellants/opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

The learned DCC Bharatpur after hearing arguments passed the impugned judgment based upon the rival pleadings and evidence and has affixed liability on the appellants/opposite parties resulting into this appeal.

 

We have heard both the learned counsels for appellants as well as respondent and have perused the record.

 

5

 

The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties more or less reiterated the grounds enumerated in the memo of appeal as contentions and has referred the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7116/2017 Station Superintendent & anr Vs. Surender Bhola dated 15.6.2023.

 

Per contra the learned counsel for respondent/complainant has vehemently opposed these contentions and has further contended that it is admitted that the respondent/complainant was travelling in reserved 2^nd AC coach and the complainant kept his articles beneath the berth and tied it with the chain also but in between 2.30 a.m. and 6.50 a.m. somebody took away the articles. According to him in reserved compartment it is the duty of the railway department more particularly of the concerned TTE of the appellants to ensure safe travel of the passengers and security of their articles/goods. According to him the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality and no interference is called for on the basis of the grounds given in the memo of appeal.

 

We have pondered upon the rival contentions of the

6

 

learned counsel for both the parties. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Station Superintendent & anr Vs. Surender Bhola (supra) is concerned, in that matter the complainant was carrying Rs. 1 lakh in cash in a belt tied around his waist and the same got stolen during the travel. As per the Hon'ble apex court the order of the learned DCC whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the railway was ordered to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation, this order has been set aside on the ground that “ If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the railways cannot be held responsible.” As such the civil appeal of railways was allowed and the relief granted to the respondent/complainant was set aside.

 

In our humble view the facts and circumstances of the above case are entirely different from those of the case in hand because in the present matter the respondent/complainant was travelling in 2^nd AC reserved coach in a lower berth no. 11 and had put his luggage and laptop etc. beneath the berth itself and had tied those articles with chain lock too and the

 

 

7

 

articles were taken away by some unauthorized person during the railway journey. In the matter of North Western Railways Vs. Ravi Lodha Hon'ble NCDRC in First Appeal No. 1076/2019 decided on 12.5.2023 has, while elaborately discussing the relevant provisions of law regarding railway's liability of protection of articles of passengers in reserved coach during train journey, has held the railway liable for compensating the value of the stolen articles from the reserved compartment. This first appeal was filed before the Hon'ble NCDRC against the judgment of this Commission dated 15.5.2019 given in Complaint No. 35/2012 (Ravi Locha Vs. North Western Railways & ors.). The facts and circumstances of this case were more or less similar to those of present case. This Commission has referred the judgment of Hon'ble apex court in Union of India & ors. Vs. Sanjiv Dilsukhraj Dave & anr. ( I (2003) CPJ 72 (SC) , judgments of Hon'ble NCDRC in Union of India & ors. Vs. J.S. Kunwar ( I (2010) CPJ 90 (NC), Union of India & ors. Vs. Anjana Singh Chauhan ( IV (2014) CPJ 198 (NC) & Northern Railways Vs. Sachin Mittal ( IV (2017) CPJ 439 (NC). In all the above referred judgments Hon'ble the apex court as well as Hon'ble NCDRC has held

 

8

 

that it is the responsibility of the railways to ensure safety and security of the articles and passengers travelling in the reserved coach and if the luggage/articles are stolen from the reserved coach, it is assumable that unauthorized persons have entered in reserved compartment resulting into theft of luggage/articles of the passengers.

 

On the basis of the above judgments, we find that the impugned judgment of learned DCC Bharatpur dated 4.5.2022 does not suffer from any sort of illegality or irregularity. As stated above the judgment of Hon'ble apex court given in Station Superintendent & anr Vs. Surender Bhola (supra) is entirely based on different facts and circumstances because in that case complainant/passenger was carrying Rs. 1 lakh in cash in a belt tied around his waist, whereas in the present case the respondent/complainant was travelling in a reserved 2^nd AC coach and has put his luggage/articles beneath the berth and has tied those articles with chain lock too.

 

Based upon the above discussion the appeal does not deserve to be allowed as such the same is hereby dismissed.

 

9

 

The impugned judgment of learned DCC Bharatpur dated 4.5.2022 is hereby affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

 

(N.S.Meratwal) (A.K.Chatterjee)

Member(Judicial) Member (Judicial)

 

 

 

nm