National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vijay Kumar Jain, Advocate vs Union Of India on 17 May, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 18 of 2008 (From the Order dated 29.08.2007 in First Appeal No. 1742 of 2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan) Vijay Kumar Jain, Advocate S/o Late Shri Rishab Das Jain, R/o Nohra No.52, Grain Market, Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan .. Petitioner VERSUS 1. Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 2. General Manager, Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi. . Respondents BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : In Person For the Respondents : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 17.05.2012 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN, J., PRESIDENT Petitioner/Complainant has filed this Revision Petition against the judgment and order dated 29.08.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short, the State Commission) in appeal no. 1742/06 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner upholding the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.
FACTS:-
Complainant/Petitioner got a seat reserved in IInd class sleeper in Udyan Abha Express for travelling from Delhi to Sri Ganganagar to attend the marriage of his niece. He boarded the train on 23.1.04. He was allotted berth No.41. He went off to sleep on his berth. He got up in the middle of the night and found that the suitcase kept by him was missing. According to him, the suitcase contained articles worth Rs.15,800/-. He filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,800/-.
Respondent, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement taking the stand that under Section 16 of the Railway Act, 1989 if any goods are placed in the compartment without booking then the Railway Department is not responsible to pay.
District Forum dismissed the complaint by observing thus:-
(i) Petitioner got reserved the seat in IInd class sleeper and was allotted berth no.41. He slept on berth No.41 but kept his suitcase at berth no.43.
(ii) The possibility of taking away the suitcase by some co-passenger could not be ruled over. According to Rule 506 of the Railways I.R.C.A. Coaching Tariff No.25, the passenger himself is responsible for the safety of his luggage and the Railway Authorities cannot be held liable for any loss or damage.
(iii) Petitioner was carrying his luggage at his own risk as neither he entrusted the goods to the Conductor nor booked the same with Railway Authorities by paying the requisite fee.
Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.
Admittedly, in the present case, Petitioner was allotted berth No.41 whereas he kept his luggage at berth no.43. He had not booked the goods. There is no allegation that any stranger was allowed to enter in the compartment. We agree with the view taken by the fora below that the person sitting at berth No.43 may have taken the suitcase of the Petitioner while de-boarding the train. No evidence has been placed on record to show that the suitcase contained the goods worth Rs.15,800/-.
Findings recorded by the fora below are findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Commission in revisional jurisdiction can interfere with the order passed by the State Commission only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
We do not find any such illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Fora below. Dismissed.
.. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER Yd/