State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India vs Ajay Rawat on 14 February, 2020
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
APPEAL NO. 925/2007
Ajay Rawat
S/o Shri Premchand Rawat
Assistant Administrative Officer
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
R/o 39, Alija Bagh, Near Church,
Shinde Ki Chhawni
Gwalior (M.P.). ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Union of India
Through The General Manager
North Central Railway
Jhansi (U.P.)
2. The Railway Superintendent,
Railway Station
Khadagpur (West Bengal)
3. The Chief Commercial Manager,
North Central Railway,
Jhansi (U.P.)
4. The Station Superintendent
Railway Station,
Gwalior (M.P.) ... Respondents
Appeal No. 929/2007
1. Union of India
Through The General Manager
North Central Railway
Jhansi (U.P.)
2. The Railway Superintendent,
Railway Station
Khadagpur (West Bengal)
: 2 :
3. The Chief Commercial Manager,
North Central Railway,
Jhansi (U.P.)
4. The Station Superintendent
Railway Station,
Gwalior (M.P.) ... Appellants
Vs.
Ajay Rawat
S/o Shri Premchand Rawat
Assistant Administrative Officer
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
R/o 39, Alija Bagh, Near Church,
Shinde Ki Chhawni
Gwalior (M.P.). ... Respondent
BEFORE;
HON'BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI PRABHAT PARASHAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
SHRI DEEPESH JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT.
SHRI RAMESHWAR PATEL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES.
ORDER
( 14.02.2020 ) The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member.
Both the above mentioned appeals are directed against the order dated 6.3.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ujjain (for short 'the Forum'), in complaint case No.278/06. This order will govern disposal of both the appeals.
: 3 :2. The complainant had filed a complaint, alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties and had contended that he had boarded a train from Jagannathpuri to Howrah on 27.12.2001 in reserved coach No. S-7 on berth Nos. 47 and 55. The complainant alleged that there were unauthorised persons sitting on his berth and there was no TC or RPF personnel to provide him berth. It is alleged that there was no electricity arrangement in the coach and he had also lodged an oral complaint but the unauthorised occupants were not removed from the said coach. The complainant was carrying three suit cases for his family, which were kept beneath the berth and next morning he discovered that his suit cases were stolen. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the Forum seeking relief.
3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint, stating that the TC is always present inside the reserved coach. If, as per complainant's submission there were unauthorised persons present in the reserved coach, then he ought to have informed in this regard in the Jagannathpuri Station. No report was lodged by the complainant in the complaint register in this regard. The complainant had carelessly kept his suit cases, which he should have booked with the Railway Authorities.
4. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and awarded a sum of Rs.22,000/- as compensation on account of loss sustained by the complainant. In addition, cost of Rs.500/- has also been awarded.
5. Heard. Perused the record.
: 4 :6. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant was carrying three suit cases, in which jewelry and clothing worth Rs.50,000/- were there. Therefore, on account of loss sustained the complainant was entitled to the said amount. The reduction of the amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.22,000/- under this head was passed with material irregularity. He argued that it is a clear case of deficiency in service on part of the Railway Authorities that the entry of unauthorized persons was permitted in the reserved coach. The complainant deserves to be adequately compensated on account of gross deficiency in service on part of the opposite eparchies, since he had to undergo mental annoyance. Learned counsel prayed for enhancement of the award passed by the Forum. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay vs. Union of India and others (2004) 6 SCC 113 and the judgment of the National Commission in Southern Eastern Railway vs. Ku. Bharati Arora I (2004) CPJ 114 (NC).
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued on the basis of Section 100 of the Railways Act (for short 'the Act') that the complainant ought to have booked his luggage with the Railway Authorities, which he had ignored. The complainant had negligently kept his luggage and has acted in careless manner. He could have informed the TC or the Guard and could have registered complaint in regard to above. The complainant failed to do so and therefore, his allegations against Railways are baseless. Learned counsel argued that his appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.
: 5 :Learned counsel has placed reliance on the order dated 20th October, 2009, passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Co. (Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004), order dated 2nd July, 2013, passed in SLP Nos. 34738-34739/2012 in the case of Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Union of India and another and order dated 3rd September, 2015, passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3265 of 2014 in the case of Dinesh Agrawal vs. Indian Railway and 2 others and order dated 21st April, 2017 passed in Revision Petition No. 1916 of 2014 in the case of the East Coast Railways and another vs. Kadambari Rama Joga Rao and another.
8. On going through the record, we observe that the complainant has specifically alleged in his pleadings that when he boarded the reserved coach No.S-7, there were unauthorised persons sitting on his berth. He has contended that there was no TC and no RPF personnel present inside the reserved coach, so that he could have intimated them in this regard. The complainant alleged that after about 1 ½ hours of journey, TC came in the coach. The complainant complained to him regarding unauthorised persons, who were travelling in the coach without tickets and requested him to remove them but the TC did not take heed of his plea. The complainant has stated that TC allowed those unauthorized persons to travel in the coach despite resentment from the complainant and other co- passengers. Thereafter, next morning his luggage was stolen by those unauthorized persons. The complainant had lodged FIR in this matter and had also informed the TC in this regard.
: 6 :9. The contention of the opposite parties on Section 100 of the Act, reads as under:-
"100. Responsibility as carrier of luggage -
A railway administration shall not be
responsible for the loss, destruction,
damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and give a receipt therefor, and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless if it also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants"
This contention of the opposite parties is not sustainable in the instant matter, as the instant case is not a case of booking of luggage, as it was a suit case, which a passenger can carry with him in reserved compartment of the trains.
10. We observe that the opposite parties have denied the allegations made by the complainant and have submitted that the complainant did not take due precautions while travelling. However, there is no evidence to this effect that no unauthorized persons entered the complainant's reserved compartment, when there are specific allegations from the complainant in this respect. The opposite parties have not even filed affidavit of the TTE, who was travelling in the coach, which should support the submissions of the opposite parties and could be conclusive in deciding the entire facts and : 7 : circumstances regarding what had happened during the complainant's train journey. The complainant has alleged that no RPF personnel were there, which the opposite parties have rebutted but without leading any cogent evidence in support of their rebuttal.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we reach the conclusion that the Forum has rightly allowed the complaint. In our considered view the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The same is therefore, affirmed.
12. Both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(DR. MONIKA MALIK) (PRABHAT PARASHAR PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER Mercy