National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Union Of India vs J.S. Kunwar on 15 December, 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4007 OF 2009 (Against the order dated 9.9.2009 in F.Appeal No.175/2008 of the State Commission, Uttrakhand, Dehradun ) 1. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Railways, GOI New Delhi. 2. Divisional Railway Manager Moradabad Division 3. General Manager Northern Railways New Delhi. Petitioner(s) Versus J.S. Kunwar S/o Shri Dilwar Singh LIG Chandar Road Dehradun. Respondent BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) : Shri S.A. Sattar, Adv. Pronounced on :15 December 2009 ORDER
PER MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on admission.
Brief facts of the case are:-
The Complainant Mr. J.S. Kunwar had reservation in Coach No. S-5 Seat No. 16 in train No. 3009 (Howrah-Dehradun) from Lukhnow to Haridwar on 18.7.2002. He occupied the said seat. He was carrying a attach with important papers etc. worth Rs. 13,090/-. It is complained that at the time of running of the train unauthorized persons entered the coach and stole his attach and also the attach of Smt. Vinod Anial. This information was immediately given to the Train Escort but he denied to register FIR on 18.7.2002 on the day of travel. On 19.7.2002 after reaching Dehradun in the morning he registered FIR at the P.S. G.R.P. Dehradun. The Petitioners contended that in the District Forum that there was no authorized person or passenger without reservation in the coach and that they had no knowledge about the report to the police. It is being submitted that as per Section 100 of Railways Act, 1989, the railway department is not responsible for the goods not booked with them. They also submitted that no written information was given to the T.T. by the complainant. The District Forum after considering the evidence, allowed the complaint with direction to the Petitioner to pay Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost. Petitioners filed appeal in the State Commission which was dismissed by the order dated 9.9.2009. It was held by both the fora below that unauthorized persons had entered the coach and stole the attache of the complainant. In this Revision Petition, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel of the Petitioner Shri S.A. Sattar that the complainant did not raise alarm and chase the thief when his attach was being stolen. If he was aware of the theft then he should not have kept quiet and hence it must have been stolen during the night while the complainant was sleeping carelessly leaving aside his luggage without locking the suitcase with key and chain provided under each seat. It is submitted that prudent man is supposed to take care of his own luggage like putting the suitcase under chain and lock.
In the present case, admittedly the attach was lost in a reserved compartment. Complainant made enough effort with the Train Escort and the T.T. to register FIR and he was supposed to file it on 18.7.2002. He filed the same on 19.7.2002 after reaching Dehradun at P.S. G.R.P. Dehradun. Except mere averment and the vague allegations that the attach must have been stolen in middle of the night and the complainant is at fault by not putting his luggage under lock and key which has been provided with each seat. Petitioners are unable to substantiate their pleas against the complainant. We rely on the decision rendered by this Commission in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sanjiv Dilsukhraj Dave and Anr., 2003 CTJ 196 (CP) (NCDRC)- A major responsibility cast on the TTE in addition to examining the tickets is that of ensuring that no intruders enter the reserved compartments..This is certainly a gross dereliction of duty which resulted in deficiency in service to the Respondents.
The price difference between the unreserved ticket and a reserved ticket is quite high and the traveling public who buy a reserved ticket would expect that they can enjoy the train journey with a certain minimum amount of security and safety.
. One has to presume that passenger would take reasonable care of his luggage. But, he cannot be expected to take measures against intruders getting easily into reserved compartments and running away with goods, when the railway administration is charged with the responsibility to prevent such unauthorized entry. We have entered the 21st century and we cannot carry on our daily life in the same age old fashion with bearing brunt of indifferent service provided by public authorities like Railways. People expect in the 21st century a modicum of efficient and reliable service, which provides at least safety of person and property while traveling in reserved compartments. This view has been reaffirmed in the case of G.M. South Central Railway Vs. Dr. R.V. Kumar & Anr., 2005 CTJ 862 (CP) (NCDRC).
In our view, there is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioners in allowing the unauthorized persons to enter the reserved compartment and stealing the attach of the Respondent.
In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Commission , there is no reason for s to interfere with the order of the State Commission in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which has awarded a nominal amount to the Respondents. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
...J. ( K.S. GUPTA ) PRESIDING MEMBER ( RAJYALAKSHMI RAO ) MEMBER Mk/