State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India Through G.M. South East ... vs Dilip Kumar Chaturvedi on 7 March, 2019
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/18/881
Instituted on : 01.10.2018
1. Union of India,
Through General Manager,
South East Central Railways,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).
2. Station Master,
Railway Station,
Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)
3. Station In-charge, GRP Thana,
Railway Station,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellants / OPs.
Vs.
Dilip Kumar Chaturvedi,
S/o Vrindavan Chaturvedi, Aged about 50 years,
Occupation : Transport,
Resident of : House No.648-X, Road No.39,
Smriti Nagar, Junwani,
District Durg (Chhattisgarh) .... Respondent/Complainant
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.B. BAJPAI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. RUCHI GOEL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
Shri Rakesh Shukla, Advocate for the appellants/OPs.
Smt. Seema Sharma, Advocate for the respondent/complainant.
ORDER
DATED : 7TH MARCH, 2019 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.B. BAJPAI, PRESIDENT.
This order shall dispose off the appeal preferred by the appellants/OPs. being aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (in brevity "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.C.C./17/899, whereby and // 2 // whereunder the concerned District Forum, has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant and directed that the appellants/OPs are jointly and severally responsible to pay a sum of Rs.9,35,300/- as compensation, also Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of complaint to the respondent /complainant.
2. The facts of the complain in brief are that the respondent / complainant had filed a complaint before the concerned District Forum stating that on 09.05.2017, the respondent / complainant and his four other family members after joining marriag ceremony were returning back from Katni (M.P.) to Bhilai (C.G.).. They got their berth reserved in the Second Class Sleeper Coach of Amarkantak Express. The family members of the respondent/ complainant occupied berth Nos.49, 52 at Coach No.S-8 and berth No.69, 70 and 72 at Coach No.S-9. The wife of the respondent/ complainant locked her American Tourister Bag by two chain below the berth and they slept. Till Anuppur Station, the said bag was safe. The GRP also conducted gust between Anuppur. His bag was stolen from Coach No.S-8 berth No.49. The respondent/ complainant had occupied the berth in Coach No.S-9. When he was informed, he rushed to Coach No.S-8 and thereafter the respondent /complainant informed the G.R.P. Police, available in the train. The G.R.P. staff had lodged report and suggested the respondent/complainant to lodge the detailed First Information Report after collecting the facts as to what golden ornaments were stolen. Thereafter when the respondent/complainant reached to Durg Station, he had lodged report by giving description of the golden ornaments stolen.
// 3 // When his stolen bag and golden ornaments were not recovered, he gave legal notice to the appellants/OPs, thereafter he had filed complaint before the concerned District Forum mentioning that the golden ornaments worth Rs.6,60,330/-, silver metal worth Rs.1,00,000/-, Sarees and Clothes worth Rs.50,000/- and cash Rs.1,25,000/- total articles worth Rs.9,35,300/-. When the respondent/complainant remained unsuccessful, to get the above articles back and recovered, he had filed the complaint before the concerned District Forum.
3. Before the concerned District Forum, it was the stand of the appellants/OPs that the family members of the respondent/complainant were not travelling in their allotted seats, hence the Railway is not responsible for any inconvenience. The said goods/articles were not booked. They were not insured and as per the provisions contained in Section 100 and Sub Section (2) of Section 103 of The Railways Act, 1989, if the goods are not booked, Railway shall not be responsible for any loss or theft. The Railways had taken care by publicising this fact that they shall be responsible for safety and security of their belongings. The respondent/ complainant was travelling in Coach No.S-9 and the bag was stolen from Coach No.S-8, where the respondent/complainant was not sleeping, hence the Railway is not responsible. There were security checks in train. It is admitted by the respondent/complainant himself in para 10 of the complaint and also there is no any negligence or non-co-operatoion o the part of G.R.P. officials, who had immediately lodged report and advised the respondent/ complainant to give the detailed descriptions of the golden ornaments and othr belongings stolen, at Durg Station. With this they have // 4 // co-operated and gave services as required hence, prayed that the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant may be dismissed and also as his articles were stolen on 04.03.2016 and he had taken a stand that on account of this he had not kept the ornaments and valuable belongings in the locker, but as he travelled on 09.05.2017, hence, it is unbelievable that for more than period of one year and two months he had not made arrangement to deposit the valuables in the locker, hence the entire incident is under the cloud, therefore, the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The concerned District Forum, after due hearing, has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant in toto, as aforementioned.
5. By filing this appeal, the appellants/OPs have challenged the impugned order passed by the concerned District Forum and have supported the entire stand as taken by them becore the concerned District Forum and would submit that there is no any deficiency in service and professional mis-conduct on their part. By citing many case laws, they have prayed that since the respondent/complainant failed to prove his case, hence the appeal filed by the appellants/OPs may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the concerned District Forum may be quashed.
6. During arguments, learned counsel for the appellants/OPs would would submit that as the family members of the respondent/complainant were travelling in Secod Class Sleeper and as per the Rule No.506.2 of Coaching Tariff No.26 Part I (Volume I) of Indian Railway Conference Association, the articles taken by the passenger in passenger coach shall be at the risk of the said passenger, hence Railway is not responsible for any // 5 // theft. The respondent/complainant has not declared such gold ornaments and valuables in a declaration. The respondent/complainant has not book any goods, hence the appellants/OPs are not responsible for the alleged theft, as the respondent/complainant himself was not cautious enough to secure his belongings, which was not with the respondent/complainant .
On the other other hand, it was with the wife of the respondent/complainant, who was travelling in another Coach and she had not filed the complaint.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/ OPs has placed reliance in Revision Petition No.3992 of 2017 - Zonal Manager/General Manager, Zonal Office, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and one another Vs. Purushottam Mohta, decided by Hon'ble National Commission vide orer dated 24.01.2019, wherein it is held by Hon'ble National Commission that the complainant ought to have taken sufficient safeguard to protect his belongings, hence looking to the entire facts as nelgligence is not proved, the Railway authorities are not responsible for any alleged theft or loss. Learned counsel for the appellants/OPs also placed reliance in Revision Petition No.1916 of 2014 - The East Coast Railways & Anr. Vs. Kadambari Rama Joga Rao & Another, decided by Hon'ble Nation Commission vide order dated 21st April, 2017 wherein Hon'ble National Commission has held that as the negligence on the part of the Railway officials has not been proved, the complaint in question stands dismissed. Similarly in Revision Petition No.2025 of 2009 - General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur Zone (Vaishali) & Others Vs. Manoranjan Kumar, decided by Hon'ble National // 6 // Commission, vide order dated 25.11.2009, wherein it is held same and reiterated the law that in such cases Railway shall not be responsible. Hona'ble Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.34731 and 34739/2012 vide order datted 02.07.2013 as in Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India and Another, has also held that the Railway cannot be held responsible for alleged loss of the attachi by way of theft or otherwise, hence they have not entertained the appeal filed by the complainant and affirmed the order passed by the Consumer Courts. The learned counsel for the appellants/ OPs placed reliance on Revision Petition No.3265 of 2014 - Dinesh Agrawal Vs. Indian Railways Others, decided by Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 03.09.2015, wherein it is held that as non-co-operation on the part of the T.T.E. was not proved. The view taken by the State Commission, Chhattisgarh affirmed. Learned counsel for the appellants/OPs also cited many cases decided by this Commission on the same footing and submitted that on the basis of entire case laws and the view taken by Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble Apex Court, the appeal filed by the appellants/OPs may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the concerned District Forum, may be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that whatever belongings the passenger may keep in his hand, there is no any requirement to book the same and for this the Railways shall be respondent for any theft. As per security measure, wife of the respondent/complainant had tied the said bag, locked the said bag and was taking care for the belongings. It is nowhere mentioned in the ticket // 7 // that the passenger has to book the belongings. No one reads the rule book prior to performing journey. As in the travel in aeroplane, the luggage are separately booked and there is no any such arrangements with Railways. T.T.E. had not complied with his responsibility. The respondent/complainant and his family members were in Second Class Sleeper Coach and how unauthorized persons entered into the said Coach. This is the lapses of the Railways for the security and safety of the belongings of the passengers. Other laws are also applicable. No any fault is committed by the respondent, as he had duly proved the journey. Also submitted Second copy of the bill of those ornaments. Also filed marriage card and would submit that the Hon'ble National Commission in G.M. South Central Railway Vs. R.V. Kumar and Anr. vide order dated 04.01.2005 as in IV (2005) CPJ 57 (NC) has defined the meaning of words "Goods" and "Luggage" as in para 7 of the Order, which is as under :-
"7. In the said case, the Commission observed :-
"Under the Railways Act, 1989, 'goods' and 'luggage' are two different things defined separately under Clauses (19) and (23) respectively of Section 2 of the said Act. A plain reading of these clauses show that the word 'luggage' means baggage carrying personal belongings of passengers. Further luggage can be either carried by passenger himself or entrusted to the railway administration for carriage. 'Goods' means containers, pallets or some articles of transport used to consolidate goods and, animals. It appears that 'goods' connotes material in the nature of merchandise and does not include personal effects or proivisions under Section 13(1)(a) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to try disputes relating to the responsibility of railway administration as carrier in respect of claims of compensation for loss, destruction, damage or non-delivery of animals or goods // 8 // entrusted to the railway administration carried by Railways. The words used by the Legislature in Section 13(1)(a) are "goods" and has expressly and specifically included "luggage". Thus, under the above section, the Railway Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to try and entertain the claim for loss, etc. only of 'goods returned' to railway administration for carriage by Railways. In the present case, luggage was carred by the respondents themselves and was not entrusted to the railway administration for carriage by the Railways. Hence, in the absence of entrustment of luggage, the Railway Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute involved in the present case."
9. Hon'ble National Commission has also held in para 8 of the said order as under :-
"8. In the said case, this Commission also reiterated the duties of T.T.E. attached to the second class sleeper coach. As per rules, the duties are as under :-
"4. He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach, guide them to their berths/seats and preven unauthorized persons from the coach. He shall in particular ensure that persons holding platform tickets, who came to see off or receive passengers, do not enter the coach.
14. He shall ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move and open them up for passengers as and when required.
16. He shall ensure that the end doors of vestibule trains are kept locked between 22.00 and 6.00 hrs. "to prevent outsiders entering the coach.
17. He shall remain vigilant particularly during night time and ensue that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorized persons do not enter the coach."
19. Further, Chapter 9 of the Indian Railways Act wholly deals with carriage of goods. A reading of the definition of the word goods and the provisions of Chapter 9 relating to carriage of goods clearly indicates that the reference is to commercial goods. It is clear that // 9 // such goods have to be entrusted to railway administration for carriage. Such carriage in respect of certain goods can be charged. Section 65 provides that whatever goods are entrusted to the Railways, a railway receipt shall be given. Section 94 provides that where goods are carried at owner's risk the railway administration shall not be responsible for any loss, etc. except when it is proved that the loss was due to negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servant. Sectin 13(1)(a) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act applies to goods and animals and does not apply to personal effects, whether we call it luggage or baggage, carried by a passenger. However, in this particular case before us, we are not dealing with such goods at all. We are dealing with the luggage as defined at Clause 23 of Section 2 of the Act."
10. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that as there was negligence of the part of the staff of the Railways and as there was no merits in legal points raised by the Railway authorities, the Hon'ble National Commission, has dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the G.M., South Central Railway against the order dated 02.09.2003, passed by the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh in F.A. No.451 of 2000 and affirmed the order passed by the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh. Learned counsel would further placed reliance on the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal dated 19.02.2015 in General Manager Northern Railway Vs. Prasanta Kumar Ganguly. In the said order, the State Commission, West Bengal has held that luggage were tied with shackles beneath the seats and keys are with him and in the train the ticket checking staff allowed unauthorized persons to enter, hence, the State Commission, West Bengal upheld the order passed by the concerned District Forum and dismissed the appeal filed by the Railways. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant also placed reliance in General // 10 // Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Anupama Sharma - First Appeal No.34 of 2017, decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order dated 25.05.2017, which is also on the same line and supports the contentions of the respondent/complainant. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that as the afore cited case laws specifically R.V. Kumar's case is squarely covers in the matter, hence the appeal filed by the appellants/OPs may be dismissed. The impugned order passed by the concerned District Forum may be affirmed.
11. Perused the impugned order and record of the concerned District Forum.
12. On perusal of the entire matter, this is an admission that the Police had conducted gust once and also when they informed the matter after the incident to the G.R.P. staff present in train, they have lodged report and advised them to intimate detailed description of stolen valuables goes to show that there was no any negligence on the part of the Railways as they were conducting security checks and also lodged report. The reaon for not keeping the valuables in the locker, it is surfaced that the alleged vehicle was and stolen on 04.03.2016 and after more than one year and two months, the respondent performed his journey. A person even after one year and two months not in a position to go upto Bank to keep the valuable articles in locker. There is some cloud over this fact. We have also noticed that there is no any affidavit filed by the wife of the respondent/complainant, who was material witness as the said bag was in her custody. No reason has been assigned for not filing affidavit of wife of the respondent/complainant // 11 // who was taking said American Tourister Bag with her. The respondent/complainant is not the witness of first hand incident. He was informed by his wife and then he came to Coach No.S-8 and then attempted thereafter. It is not clear that which passenger was in which berth. Why the respondent/complainant had not got insured the available belongings worth morth than Rs.9,00,000/- unanswered. Why the respondent/complainant had not kept the said bag with him I also unanswerable. Whey he gave the bag to his wife, who was sleeping in another coach. It is also not the case of the respondent/complainant that there was deficiency in service or whether the railways staff allowed the unauthorized persons to enter in the coach, goes to show that there was no negligence on their part. Also as Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.34731 and 34739/2012 vide order datted 02.07.2013 as in Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India and Another, has also held that "the Railway cannot be held responsible for alleged loss of the attachi by way of theft or otherwise." The appreciation of Hon'ble Apex Court supersede the other appreciation by any other authority. Also in view of the said Rule No.506.2 of Coaching Tariff No.26 Part I (Volume I) of Indian Railway Conference Association, the passengers shall be responsible for any risk for the belongings which he is carrying. Also the provisions of Section 100 of The Railways Act, 1989 is attracted in the matter. As per the said provision, the Railway Administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant hs booked the luggage and given a receipt therefor. Hon'ble National Commission in R.V. Kumar's Case (Supra) differentiate the meaning of words goods and luggage, but in the // 12 // present matter no one can be granted to keep the valuable luggage even without getting them insured or to keep those luggage in the security of male person who may be more alert prone. Also a reasons mentioned for not keeping the huge ornaments in the locker, does not inspire confidence and also as there is no any affidavit of wife of the respondent/complinant, who was carrying said luggage at point of time and Police also had conducted gust once for the security purposes and as the Coach had four door, the occupants board the train or deboard the train at various stations on the way. One cannot expect to put four security personnels in every coach. Also the coaches are now inter-connected. Any person may take entry in that connected series of coaches. It may not be expected by the Railway authorities more steps they have taken in the entire incident.
13. On perusal of the facts and laws and looking to the entire facts and law developed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Jain's case (supra), we are of the considered view that the concerned District Forum has committed a mistake of fact and law by allowing the complaint, which requires interference from our side, as the respondent/complainant failed to prove his case, as required.
14. Consequently, we hereby dispose off the appeal filed by the appellants/OPs as follows :-
(i) The appeal filed by the appellants/OPs, is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 25.08.2018, passed by the concerned District Forum in Complaint Case No.C.C./17/899, is hereby quashed.
// 13 //
(iii) No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice C.B. Bajpai) (Narendra Gupta) (Smt. Ruchi Goel)
President Member Member
07 /03/2019 07 /03/2019 07 /03/2019