Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1116

SMT.SWATI ASEEM GOERGE - Complainant(s)

Versus

WESTERN CENTRAL RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

SH.ARUN MISHRA

02 Mar 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 19.05.2017 passed in C.C.No.519/2015 by District Commission, Jabalpur-2)

 

SMT. SWATI ASEEM GEORGE,

W/O SHRI ASEEM RAJ GEORGE,

R/O HOUSE NO.7/144, CANT, MAHAVIR COMPOUND,

SADAR, JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                                                         … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

THE GENERAL MANAGER,

WESTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY,

JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                                                                        … RESPONDENT.

                              

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

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

           Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent.                

                

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 02.03.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur-2 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.519/2015 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by her.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant was travelling along with her family members on berth no.10,11,13,14 & 16 in

-2-

coach no. S-3 of train no.12182-Dayodya Express, on 23.12.2014 from Jaipur to Jabalpur. It is alleged that during the course of the journey, in the intervening night of 23.12.2014 & 24.12.2014 her green coloured trolley bag which was kept beneath the berth was stolen. When she came to know about the incident, she informed the same to GRP personnel at Katni Junction, who asked her to report the matter at GRP, Jabalpur after deboarding the train. The complainant eventually lodged FIR at the destination with the GRP Police Station, Jabalpur on 24.12.2014, which was registered at crime number 270/2014. It is alleged that due to negligence of the opposite party/respondent, her trolley bag containing articles worth Rs.1,56,000/- was stolen. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief of Rs.3,08,000/-. 

4.                The opposite party/respondent-Railways in its reply before the District Commission raised objection that the District Commission, Jabalpur had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and only the District Commission, where the incident took place, had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant did not book her luggage and therefore, the Railway administration is not responsible for loss. If some valuable goods like jewelry were kept in the bag, the complainant ought to have booked the same. Also, the complainant has not specifically alleged

-3-

that due to negligence of railway staff, theft took place.  It is further stated that the complainant ought to have filed complaint before the Railway Claims Tribunal and not before the District Commission, established under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant should have take care of her belongings and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.56,175/- to the complainant with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of journey i.e. 23.12.2014, within a period of two months. In addition compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony with another sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs has also been awarded.

6.                Heard.  Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that when the complainant came to know about the theft, she had informed the GRP personnel at Katni Junction, who advised her not to break the journey and lodge FIR at the destination. She informed the TTE and police personnel but they did not co-operate her. Her bag was containing articles worth Rs.1,56,000/-.  Despite that the District Commission has awarded only meagre amount of Rs.56,175/-. She and her family members had to suffer a lot and despite that the District Commission has awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- only. He argued that it was specifically mentioned in the FIR that value of articles, which were stolen was Rs.1,56,000/-. The District

-4-

Commission ought to have awarded compensation accordingly, after taking into consideration the inconvenience caused to the complainant and her family members.  He argued that compensation awarded by the District Commission deserves to be enhanced.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the District Commission has without any basis allowed the complaint when there was no evidence to substantiate the complainant’s contention.  The complainant has not been able to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. The complainant has alleged that goods worth Rs.1,56,000/- were stolen, but she has not been able to place authentic bills of those articles in order to substantiate her submission.  Even then the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by her.  The District Commission has awarded Rs.56,175/- with interest @ 10% p.a. with Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs to the complainant without there being any basis for that. He therefore, argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

9.                The opposite party has raised a specific plea that the complainant had not booked her belongings with the Railway Administration and therefore she is not entitled for compensation as per section 100 of the Indian Railways Act. The opposite party has taken defence of Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, which reads thus:                                        

-5-

“Responsibilities as carrier of luggage- A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt thereof, and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge unless, it is also proved that the loss, destruction,                                          

damage or deterioration was due to negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any its servant.”

 

Aforesaid section clearly stipulates that in case of luggage which is carried by the passenger, the railway administration shall not be responsible for its loss, unless it is proved that the said loss was due to negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servant.

10.              We find that there are categorical allegations from the complainant that an unknown person stole her trolley bag and she tried to search the same, but the running TC staff did not co-operate with her.  The opposite party has not specifically challenged the allegations of the complainant.  The District Commission has rightly held that no affidavit of the coach attendant or police personnel has been put forward by the opposite party in order to substantiate its submission and to controvert the complainant’s allegations.  

11.              The complainant in her complaint has specifically alleged that her luggage was kept under the berth. It is the duty of the railway administration to ensure safety of its passengers and no unauthorized entry should be permitted in the reserved coach. Looking at the facts of the case, we are of a considered view that the opposite party cannot take shelter of

 

-6-

Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act as aforesaid and escape from its liability. 

12.              In view of the aforesaid, we find that the District Commission has rightly held the opposite party deficient in service and has awarded compensation to the complainant. The District Commission has awarded compensation taking into consideration the evidence available on record and that too with interest @ 10% p.a.  Apart from this Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.2,000/- have also been awarded. We infer that the District Commission has awarded adequate compensation and we do not find any ground for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Commission. 

13.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the complainant has been adequately compensated by the District Commission. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.

14.              As a result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

    (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)       (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                         PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER