State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Western Central Rail Jabalpur vs Rajendra Sethiya on 4 January, 2019
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FIRST APPEAL No.2363 /2014.
1. Union of India
through General Manager,
West Central Rail,
Jabalpur (M.P.).
2. Divisional Railway Manager
(Commercial),
West Central Rail,
Jabalpur (M.P.).
3. Divisional Railway Manager
(Commercial)
West Central Rail,
Bhopal (M.P.).
4. Station Superintendent,
Railway Station, Katni,
(M.P.). .... Appellants.
Versus
Rajendra Sethiya,
s/o Shri B. D. Sethiya,
R/o Azad Chowk,
In front of Azad Tent House,
Katni, Tehsil & District Katni,
(M.P.). .... Respondent.
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI S. D. AGARWAL, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. (SMT) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER
- 2-
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri H. S. Rajput, learned counsel for appellants.
None for respondent.
ORDER
(Passed on 4 /1/2019) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :
1. This appeal by opposite parties / appellants is against the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by District Forum, Katni in CC No.1/2014 whereby the complaint against them has been partly allowed.
2. Briefly put facts of the case are that the complainant had booked two train tickets of Train No.18234 'Bilaspur Indore Narmada Express' from opposite parties for his journey from Katni to Indore. Complainant along with his wife was travelling on reserved berths no.33 and 36 in a reserved coach. The complainant was carrying a bag which he had locked with the help of chain. It is alleged that when the train left Bhopal towards Indore, the complainant found his bag missing. The complainant could not locate the same despite efforts. He raised an alarm and co-passengers also woke
- 3- up. It is alleged that no GRP and RPF personnel were there in the entire coach. TTE was informed who suggested him to lodge a complaint, after the train halts at Indore. The complainant finally lodged the police report on 10.6.2013. The complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, seeking compensation along with cost.
3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint stating that there was no unauthorized person inside the coach when the complainant was travelling on 9.6.2013. The complainant did not take due precautions and had carelessly left his bag. The complainant had not used the safety lock available under the berth. Four guards of GRP were there on patrol, taking care of the entire train. Opposite parties sought dismissal of complaint filed against them.
4. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and awarded the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000/- to be paid, within a month by the opposite parties / appellants. Compensation of Rs.3,000/-, with Rs.1,000/- as costs was also awarded. Hence this appeal.
5. Heard. Perused the record.
- 4-
6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties / appellants argued that the complainant ought to have taken care of his bag which he had left unattended. He further argued that the District Forum has erroneously awarded the amount claimed by the complainant, when there is no evidence that the complainant had incurred loss to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. He argued that the complainant was ATM card holder and thus there is no reason, why he was carrying cash along with him. He gave reference of Judgment passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Union of India & Ors. Rama Shanker Misra & Anr., IV (2015) CPJ 653 (NC), in support of his submission.
7. The evidence on record reveals that complainant / respondent had lodged FIR dated 10.6.2013 wherein he has specified that unknown person had stolen his bag carrying certain important documents including his ATM Card, Aadhar Card, Driving Licence, Pass book, Voter ID, few cheques of State Bank of India with cash amounting to Rs.37,000/-. The complainant has alleged that the theft has occurred somewhere between Itarsi and Bhopal. He could not file report in Bhopal due to paucity of time.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties / appellants has submitted that the complainant did not take due precautions while travelling
-
- 5- and had not locked his bag. The complainant / appellant has stated that he had informed regarding the incident to TTE, but his bag could not be traced. He has raised suspicion that some unknown or unauthorized person had stolen his bag.
9. There has not been any categorical submission by the opposite parties / appellant that they had followed the instruction contained in the circular issued by the Government of India and that the doors of the vestibule were latched between 10 PM to 6 AM. No evidence to this effect is there on record that no unauthorized person entered the reserved compartment, even when there are specific allegations from the complainant / respondent on this aspect. The opposite parties / appellants have not even filed an affidavit of TTE, who was travelling in the coach, which could support the submission of the opposite parties / appellants and could be conclusive in deciding the entire facts and circumstances, regarding what had happened during the complainant's / respondent's train journey. The complainant / respondent has alleged that no RPF personnel were there in the coach, which the opposite parties / appellants have rebutted, but they have not led any evidence in support of their submissions. There was merely a halt in Bhopal. The complainant's / respondent's journey was 6- terminated in Indore, thus he could lodge FIR, on reaching Indore. In this view of the matter the opposite parties / appellants are not benefitted from the judgement referred by them.
10. In view of the above, we reach a conclusion that the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and is therefore, affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. However, no order as to costs of this appeal.
( S.D.Agarwal ) (Dr.Monika Malik)
Presiding Member Member
Phadke