State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Western Railway vs Meenu Chhazed on 20 April, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First
Appeal No. A/11/116
(Arisen
out of Order Dated 03/11/2010 in Case No. 898/2009 of District
Mumbai(Suburban))
1. WESTERN RAILWAY
BORIVALI RAILWAY STATION BORIVALI
MUMBAI 400 092
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MEENU CHHAZED
C/601 SONI PARK
CHIKOOWADI BORIVALI WEST
MUMBAI 400 092
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Mr.Sanjay Bhosale-Advocate
......for the Appellant
Mr.Nitin Chhazed-Husband and A.R.
......for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Honble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar, MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 03/11/2010 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in consumer complaint no.898/2009. Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-
On 12/10/2009, the complainant/respondent was travelling by Avantika Express in AC-3 Tier compartment from Borivali to Indore. It is contended by the complainant that around 11.00 p.m. on that day the train reached to Surat station and complainant got awake and noticed that her purse containing train ticket, PAN card, cash and jewellery were missing. She raised an alarm and other passengers also came to her and she narrated the incidence to the fellow passengers and she tried to find out the attendant and TC. However, both were not present in the compartment. After some time Ticket checker Mr.Pawar came to the compartment and she explained the incidence to him. Mr.Pawar explained to her that Railway police will be available only at next station i.e.Bharuch.
However, at Bharuch station there was neither attendant nor the ticket checher-Mr.Pawar. Two Railway police came to the compartment.
However, they refused to take FIR of the complainant and told her that she should have got down at Surat itself and lodged the FIR. When the complainant insisted, the complaint was recorded, however, the offence was not registered and a copy thereof was not given to the complainant. The complainant claimed that the theft of her belongings occurred due to the railway employees because they were so negligent in keeping vigil on the entry of the outsiders. The complainant made allegations against the Railway police for not recording the FIR, not furnishing her a copy of FIR. Hence she filed consumer complaint praying that the opponent be directed to pay her the price for loss of cell phone, loss of jewellery, cash, mental agony and legal expenses `97,626/-.
The opponent resisted the complaint by filing written version contending that it is not responsible for loss of luggage and referred Section 100 of the Railways Act which pertains to the responsibility of Railway department as a carrier of luggage. The opponent contended that since the complainant has not booked her luggage, the opponent is not responsible for loss of the articles. They further contended that they do not have control on the Railway police and hence they are not concerned about the allegations against the police. They further contended that the attendant and ticket checker were not negligent in the duty and denied the allegations of the complainant that the ticket checker and attendant have not attended the complainant.
Complainant filed rejoinder to the written version of the opponent and reiterated her allegations that the attendant as well as ticket checker were negligent.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after taking into consideration the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the opponent, rejoinder to the written version filed by the complainant, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavit, pleadings of the advocates of the parties, came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and allowed the complaint partly directing opponent to pay an amount of `28,425/- towards compensation along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of entire amount by the complainant. Being aggrieved by this order, original opponent has filed this appeal.
We heard Ld.counsel Mr.Sanjay Bhosale for the appellant and Mr.Nitin Chhazed-A.R. of the respondent.
We have gone through the complaint, written version, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavit and the pleadings of the advocates and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Appellant has not denied the fact that the respondent travelled by Avantika Express on 12/10/2009 in AC-3 tier compartment. Further, appellant has not denied the incidence of theft. From the evidence adduced by the respondent, it is evident that the incidence of theft occurred at Surat station, the respondent tried to contact the attendant and TC. The TC came when the train left Surat station and TC told the respondent that the police will be available to next stop that is Bharuch. Accordingly, police came to the next station. Initially they refused to register the complaint of respondent. However, subsequently registered the complaint. It is also the fact that a Crime No.169/2009 was registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code on 28/12/2009 and accused was arrested on 03/01/2010 and stolen articles were recovered. Similarly, perusal of the rejoinder affidavit shows that Inspector General of Railway police had written a letter dated 01/04/2010 to the Deputy Director, Railway Board, New Delhi stating that the offence was registered on 28/12/2009. From these facts it is clear that the incidence occurred on 12/10/2009 and the FIR was registered on 28/12/2009.
Ld.counsel for the appellant tried to rely on the provisions of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 and contended that the Railway administration is not responsible for the loss/theft of the luggage of the passengers. However, this provision is applicable to the Railway department as a carrier of luggage and the articles stolen of the respondent is not a luggage. Further, the Ld.counsel tried to argue that for deciding such claim, Railway Claims Tribunal established by the Railway has jurisdiction. On perusal of the sections relied by the Ld.counsel, it is seen that it is for loss, damage, destruction or non delivery of animals or goods entrusted to the Railway administration. The Ld.counsel further taken a stand that thousands of commuters travel by train every day and it is difficult to keep a track of the articles of the commuters and, therefore, Section 100 is provided in the Railways Act. However, we are not convinced.
In various rulings Apex Court has held that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are in addition to and not in derogation of other law for the time being in force.
The Ld.counsel has tried to draw our attention to the phone calls details of the cell phone of the respondent which was stolen and stated that after the incidence of theft, that the husband of the respondent had talked with her on her stolen phone and, hence, there is no theft of cell phone. On the contrary, at page 83 of the appeal compilation there is a letter of the Inspector General of Police dated 01/04/2010, wherein he has informed to the Deputy Director, Security (Crime), Railway Board, New Delhi, that the case has been thoroughly investigated and accused named Vinod @ Ravi Bansir Kharwar of Surat was arrested on 03/01/2010 and all the stolen articles were recovered during the search of his house, which were later on duly identified by the complainant. In the list of articles cell phone is included. We are pained by the contention of Learned counsel, which is not only incorrect but also totally irrelevant.
It is a fact that the respondent was travelling by Avantika Express on 12/10/2009. At Surat station she noticed that her purse containing train ticket, PAN Card, cash and jewellery was missing. It is her contention that at the time of incidence there was no ticket checker and attendant in the compartment. She had to call the ticket checker. In fact, at Surat station only, as per the Citizens Charter on Passenger Services, which is published by the Railways, it was the duty of the ticket checker to lodge the First Information Report with the GRP to enable the passenger to continue her journey.
As against this, he told the respondent that GRP will be available on next station and GRP told the respondent that she should have got down at Surat itself. This amounts to clear cut deficiency on the part of the ticket checker. Further, the fact that at Bharuch station her complaint was registered, however, she got the FIR number on 28/12/2009. This is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the opponent.
In the appeal compilation, there is a copy of Citizens Charter on Passenger Services. Its preamble reads as under:-
Preamble :
This Charter is a commitment of the Indian Railway Administration to :
Provide safe and dependable train services;
Set notified standards for various services wherever possible;
Ensure adequate passenger amenities in trains and at railway stations;
Provide courteous and efficient counter services; and Set up a responsive and effective Grievance Redressal Machinery, at various levels for time-bound resolution of complaints and grievances as far as possible.
The objectives are laudable. However, it is very important to see whether the commitment set out in the preamble of Citizens Charter is followed by the employees. Indian Railway is a preferred mode of transport for the long distances. Nearly 90% of the population of the country use the Railway for journey. The Citizens Charter on Passenger Services outlines duties for the attendant and the ticket checker. Whether the duties enumerated in the Citizens Charter are followed is a question? On the contrary, it is an experience that this is not followed. Administration is an instrument of change. If everybody follows the duty protocol in letter and spirit, passengers will be able to travel safely.
In the present case, respondent is a lady and was traveling with small kids. When the respondent noticed her purse containing valuable missing neither the attendant nor TC was in the compartment. No doubt the TC arrived after some time but instead of assisting the respondent, informed only the GRP. Initially the GRP declined to register the complaint, however on insistence of the respondent registered the complaint. Similarly, the appellants contention that they have no control on police is not in a proper spirit. The opponent and GRP both are the two arms of the Government and proper co-ordination is expected. All the aforesaid facts prove that the appellant was deficient in providing the service to respondent. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has passed the order taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Appeal is without any substance and merit. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is hereby confirmed.
Appellant should pay cost of `25,000/- to the respondent and bear its own costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 20th April, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member Ms.