State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
South East Central Railway vs Saudamini Meshram on 14 February, 2019
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/18/759
Instituted on : 04.08.2018
01. South East Central Railway,
Through : General Manager,
Bilaspur (C.G.)
02. South East Central Railway,
Through : D.R.M.
W.R.S . Colony,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellants / OPs
Vs.
Saudamini Meshram, D/o Shri V.R. Meshram,
R/o : 122, Rajdhani Vihar,
Behind Shanti Sarovar,
Vidhan Sabha Road, Saddhu,
Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G.). .... 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.
Shri Ruchir Jhanwar, Advocate for the respondent/complainant.
ORDER
DATED : 14 FEBRUARY, 2019 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.B. BAJPAI, PRESIDENT.
The appellants/OPs had filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 19th June, 2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (in brevity "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.136/2015, whereby and whereunder the concerned District Forum has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent / complainant and directed the appellants/OPs to pay a sum of Rs.66,151/- to the respondent / complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the // 2 // complaint i.e. 02.03.2015 till date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of complaint and lawyer's fees.
2. The facts in brief are that on 06.01.2015, the respondent/ complainant was travelling in Sampark Kranti Express Train No.-12824 in berth No.74 Coach No.S-4. The said berth was reserved for her. After Agra Railway Station, the speed of the train was slow. One unknown thief snatched her purse and run away from the train. The respondent / complainant and fellow passengers attempted to stop the train. Whey they are unsuccessful, they have searched the concerned T.T.E. and informed the same and at the Jhansi Railway Station, the respondent/ complainant lodged her report and thereafter on 07.01.2015 she lodged her report before G.R.P. Raipur (C.G.). as her two mobiles, golden tops two in numbers and cash along with her I.D. , total articles worth Rs.67,000/- have been stolen. Thereafter the respondent / complainant gave notice to the appellants/ OPs and ultimately filed the complaint before the concerned District Forum.
3. The concerned District Forum, after entire hearing, has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent /complainant to the extent as aforementioned.
4. Against the said order, the appellants/OPs have preferred this appeal, supported the entire grounds taken by them before the concerned District Forum and also they have taken ground in Memorandum of Appeal as it is not proved that the respondent / complainant got berth No.74 rserved in Coach No.S-4 of Sampark Kranti Express, hence it is not proved // 3 // that she was consumer of the appellants/OPs and the respondent/ complainant had not filed any documents regarding the said reservation. Also provisions of Section 100 of The Railways Act, 1989, are attracted in the matter and unless the negligent or misconduct on the part of servant of the Railway, is proved, the Railway Administration shall not be responsible for the loss. Also the appellants/ OPs had taken ground that the matter is barred by jurisdiction and as the respondent/ complainant had failed to prove the facts of the complaint. The appeal filed by the appellants/OPs may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the concerned District Forum, may be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/OPs has supported the entire grounds taken by the appellants/OPs and would submit that as it is not proved the relationship between the appellants/OPs and the respondent / complainant of "service provider" and "consumer" and also under relevant provisions of Section 100 of The Railways Act, 1989, the appellants/OPs are not liable for any compensation and also as per Rule No.506.2 of Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No.26 Part I (Volume I) in force from January, 2007 and applicable. As per the said Rule any article taken in the Passenger Coach shall be subject of the risk of the owner. 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 // 4 // 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 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 // 5 // 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.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant would submit that as the respondent/ complainant had taken E-ticket, the message was in her mobile and the mobile itself was stolen for which they have lodged report in Police Station, Jhansi (U.P.) and when she reached to Raipur, she lodged formal report before G.R.P. Raipur (C.G.) and also submitted necessary bills of those golden tops and mobiles and would submit that in the present matter the second part of Section 100 of The Railways Act, 1989, is applicable. The duty of the concerned T.T.E. was to close the the gate of the coach and to check each and every person entered in the coach and also be alert for any unauthorised entry in the coach, hence the appeal filed by the appellants/OPs may be dismissed and the impugned order passed by the concerned District Forum, may be affirmed. Learned counsel for the respondent / complainant has placed reliance on North Westen Railway & Ors. Vs. Jasmin Mann, I (2018 CPJ 580 (NC), wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Railways as there was no any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the order passed by concerned District Forum on the basis of negligent act of the coach attendant of A.C. II Tier Coach. He also placed reliance on Revision Petion No.1590/2000 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave and Anr., decided by Hon'ble National Commission, wherein it is held that looking to the list of the duties prescribed by the Railway Administration for T.T.E. of the Sleeper Coach // 6 // and as the T.T.E. was negligent, hence affirmed the order passed by the State Commission, Gujarat for compensation to the complainant. Learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant also placed reliance on Revision Petition No.1158 of 2001 - Mrs. M. Kanthimathi & Anr. Vs. The Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Represented by General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai, decided by Hon'ble National Commission, vide order dated 08.11.2002, wherein Hon'ble National Commission held that on account of negligent act of the officials of Railway, restored the order passed by the concerned District Forum and set aside the order passed by the State Commission, Tamil Nadu. On behalf of the respondent/ complainant, few other case laws of this Commission have also been cited on the same line.
7. Perused the impugned order passed by the concerned District Forum and pleadings and documents filed by the parties in the matter.
8. On perusal, it appears that on 06.01.2015, the respondent/ complainant informed the Railway Official at Jhansi Railway Station. In the said information, it is informed that someone entered in the train and when train was slow in outer after the Agra Cant Station, he snatched complainant's hand bag thereby loss of two mobile bearing Nos.9650962509 and38818812418. Thereafter on 07.01.2015, the respondent / complainant gave a written complaint to the G.R.P. Raipur (C.G.) as her purse was missing somewhere near Agrant Cant. In the said purse two mobile Samsung Galaxy 2 Sim No.9650962509, 8818812418,, one pair golden tops, Voter I.D. Card, Court documents and Rs.3,000/- etc. were kept. On perusal of these two reports, it appears that they are for two contradictory facts. In // 7 // earlier report, it is submitted that someone had snatched the hand bag of the respondent/ complainant, whereas in another report it is stated that her purse was lost somewhere. In the second report there was no any fact regarding snatching of the hand bag of the respondent/complainant. This creates shadow over the incident specially when as per earlier report, the berth No. was 72, whereas in the complaint, berth no. was mentioned 74. Also there is no any document filed by the respondent/complainant regarding her reservation in the said train and in which coach and berth. The respondent/ complainant may have obtained the information through R.T.I. to prove that she got a berth reserved in the said compartment and to prove this fact it was the responsibility of the respondent/ complainant and by not proving this initial relationship of consumer is not established. Also in both of the reports, there was no any allegation regarding negligent act or non-cooperation by the Railway Authorities and straightaway the respondent/ complainant is submitting that her hand bag lost womewhere near Agra Cant and is not saying anything regarding snatching of the hand bag in the report dated 07.01.2015, goes to show the facts may not be correct and as the respondent/complainant failed to demonstrate any negligence on the part of the officials of the railway or any non-cooperation, the second part of Section 100 of The Railways Act, 1989 is not applicable and under the relevant provisions, the Railway shall not be responsible for any loss so occurred and also on perusal of the relevant Rules 506.2 of Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No.26 Part I (Volume I) whatever articles taken by the passenger in second class compartment shall be at complete risk of the owner of the said property. There is no any fact proved regarding negligent act of the concerned T.T.E. or coach attendant or any // 8 // any non-cooperation. We are of the considered view that the case laws cited by the appellants/ OPs are applicable in the matter and the case laws cited on behalf of the respondent/ complainant are on different facts, hence are of no support for the respondent/complainant.
9. On consideration of the entire facts, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the concerned District Forum, allowing the complaint of the respondent/ complainant, is bad in law and also in facts, which requires interference by this Commission. The appellants/OPs had shown a strong case for them in the matter.
10. 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 19.06.2018, passed by the concerned District Forum in Complaint Case No.136/2015, is hereby quashed.
(iii) No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice C.B. Bajpai) (Narendra Gupta) (Smt. Ruchi Goel) President Member Member 14 /02/2019 14/02/2019 14 /02/2019