Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/910

SWATI - Complainant(s)

Versus

WESTERN RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

08 Feb 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 910 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 27.04.2017 passed in C.C.No.84/2016 by District Commission, Ratlam)

 

SWATI D/O SHRI JITENDRA S. SHAH,

R/O 23, SRIJAN, VAKEEL COLONY,

RATLAM (M.P.)                                                                                                                   … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. WESTERN RAILWAY,

    THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER,

    CHURCH GATE, MUMBAI (M.S.)

 

2. WESTERN RAILWAY,

    THROUGH DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (DRM),

    DAAT KI PUL, DO BATTI, RATLAM (M.P.)                                                            … RESPONDENTS.                                

                                  

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY                               :  MEMBER

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

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Vijay Sehgal, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri H. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the respondents.

                

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 08.02.2023)

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

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratlam (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.84/2016, whereby the complaint filed by

 

-2-

the appellant against the opposite parties/respondents-railways (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents’) was dismissed.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the appellant is an Assistant Professor in Srijan Institute of Technology and Management Science College, Ratlam. On 19.03.2015 she boarded train with 15 students for a trip from Ratlam to Manali in coach no. S-5, of Indore Chandigarh Express train no.19301. Between Nizamuddin & Delhi railway station, at about 1.30 am an unknown person snatched her bag and ran away. Her mobile phone with sim, ATM card, ID proof, license, power bank and Rs.7,000/- cash were lost with the bag.  The appellant lodged FIR in the matter after de-boarding the train in Chandigarh. Despite that her bag was not recovered. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the respondents, the appellant approached the District Commission, seeking relief. 

3.                The respondents in their reply before the District Commission submitted that the passengers are required to look after their luggage in reserved coach.  As per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, railway administration is not responsible when the luggage is not booked. The appellant should have taken care of bag and belongings carried by her.  There is no deficiency in service on part of the respondents and therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

4.                Heard.  Perused the record.

-3-

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission has erroneously dismissed the case, without deciding it on merits.  The appellant suffered loss due to negligence and dereliction of duty on part of the respondents since no unauthorized person should have been be allowed to enter the reserved coach.  The District Commission ought to have decided the complaint on its merits and should have allowed the complaint, but it has committed error in dismissing the complaint.  Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

6.                Learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order argued that there is no specific allegation against the railways in the complaint.  There is no such pleading that the respondents had allowed unauthorized persons in the reserved coach.  In such circumstances, when the appellant has not been able to prove deficiency in service on part of the respondents, she does not deserve to get any relief. This appeal therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

7.                The respondents in their reply have raised a specific plea that the appellant 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 respondents have taken defence of Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, which reads thus:

 

 

                                          -4-

“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.

8.                The appellant has categorically alleged that an unauthorized person snatched her hand bag, at about 1.30 am post-midnight.  This itself indicates that there was unauthorized entry in the reserved coach, in which the appellant was travelling.  The respondents have though expressed denial to the appellant’s pleadings but we observe that an affidavit of the TTE, who was travelling in the coach is lacking, which could have been substantial in deciding the matter.  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. We find that the respondents have failed to prove that they are not negligent and deficient in service in the instant matter.

9.                Looking at the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the respondents cannot take shelter of Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act as aforesaid and escape from their liability.  The District

-5-

Commission has held that in order to hold the respondents deficient in service, it has not been proved whether the TTE permitted entry of unauthorized persons in the subject coach. We find no ground to entertain such observation.

10.              The impugned order holding that the complainant/appellant not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and holding the railways not negligent and deficient in service, deserves to be and is hereby set-aside.

11.              The appellant has categorically mentioned that the mobile handset with sim and other items, along with Rs.7,000/- as cash, were kept in her bag.  However, we find that two purchase receipts are available in the record of the District Commission, one is receipt no.392 dated 08.04.2011, regarding Sony Digital for a sum of Rs.8,700/- and another is receipt no.13725 dated 30.12.2011, with regard to purchase of Samsung Galaxy S-5360 mobile handset for a sum of Rs.7,340/-.  She has also specified in the FIR that she carried a sum of Rs.7,000/- in cash, in her hand bag.  Therefore, in this view of the matter we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay Rs.8,700+Rs.7,340+Rs.7,000 i.e. a sum total of Rs.23,040/- to the appellant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint, till realization within a period of 4 weeks. The appellant also

 

-6-

deserves cost of this appeal which is to be paid by the respondents and is quantified at Rs.3,000/-.

12.              This appeal stands allowed accordingly. Needless to mention that the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant is also allowed.

 

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

                       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                         MEMBER