National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Union Of India vs Ashok Prasad on 6 October, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2228 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 16/02/2015 in Appeal No. 141/2014 of the State Commission Jharkhand) 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY DHANBAD JHARKHAND ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ASHOK PRASAD SON OF LATE SHRI MANKI PRASAD INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, PURULIA ROAD, RANCHI JHARKHAND 2. ASHOK PRASAD, PRESENT ADDRESS:44, HAZARIBAGH ROAD, LALPUR RANCHI JHARKHAND ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr R V Sinha, Advocate with Mr A S Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO Dated : 06 Oct 2015 ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Ranchi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand '(the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 151 of 2014, whereby the State Commission had dismissed the appeal preferred against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi in complaint case no. 74 of 1993.
Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent/ complainant filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner on 01.02.1993 alleging that on 24.01.1993 he along with his family were travelling in a 3 Tier Sleeper Coach - S 4 from Barauni to Ranchi. At Barahiya Railway station number of unauthorised person boarded the reserved compartment and occupied the berth allotted to the complainant. Complainant requested those persons to shift to some other place but they insisted that they would not move unless the Train Ticket Collector (TTC) arrives and ask them to move away. Guard was informed and he was requested to send the TTC in the compartment but no TTC came to the compartment. After the departure of train from Dhanbad Railway Station, the complainant fell asleep and when he woke up in the morning he found that his three suit cases were missing and all those unauthorised persons had already departed. The complainant informed the GRP at Gomoh Railway station and then he got recorded his complaint in the Guard Book at Ranchi Railway Station. According to the complainant, the suit case contained some gold jewellery besides clothes etc., worth Rs.87,000/-. As the railway authorities failed to reimburse the complainant, the complainant raised a consumer dispute.
The petitioner/ opposite party in response to the complaint took preliminary objections that the consumer complaint was not maintainable in view of section 13 and 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 and even on merit they denied the allegations.
The District Forum vide its order dated 21.02.1995 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent/ complainant preferred an appeal. The State Commission, Jharkhand allowed the appeal vide its order dated 17.11.2009 and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent/ complainant for the loss and negligence, besides Rs.2,500/- towards cost of litigation with interest of 10%..
Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the National Commission and the National Commission vide its order dated 25.04.2011 set aside the order of the State Commission and remanded the matter back to the State Commission to decide the issue of jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. The State Commission in turn remanded the matter back to the District Forum for re-deciding the matter.
The District Forum vide its order dated 16.04.2014 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner as under:
"In view of the discussions made and findings given with respect to issue no. 1 & II we have come to a conclusion that the ends of justice will be met if the complainant is paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the loss of his belongings. Accordingly, OP is directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this case within 60 days from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall become entitled to recover the amount along with a penal interest @ 12% per annum till realisation. A sum of Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost is allowed.
The complaint case is accordingly stands allowed in part".
Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission, Jharkhand vide its order dated 16.02.2015 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr R V Sinha has contended that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is without jurisdiction, in view of bar of jurisdiction provided in section 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It is further contended that compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded is not justified, in view of Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Commission in RP no. 2025 of 2009 - General Manager -East Central Railway, Hajipur Zone, (Vaishali) vs Manoranjan Kumar, decided on 25.11.2009 and also the judgment in RP No. 1108 of 2007 - Ram Balak Pandey vs General Manager, Eastern Railway Gorakhpur and Ors decided on 28.03.2011.
In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be useful to have a look on the Section 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which is reproduced under:
"13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of claims tribunal - (1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act, -
Relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for -
Compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway;
Compensation payable under section 82 A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and In respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway.
[(1A) - The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989) all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration section 124 A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder].
(2) The provisions of the [Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989)] and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act.
15. Bar of jurisdiction - On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in [sub-section (1) and (1A)] of section 13."
On perusal of the above, it is clear that as per Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, relates to the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain the claims relating to compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway and compensation payable under section 82 A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 15 provides bar of jurisdiction that no court or any other authority is entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matter referred to Section 13.
On reading of Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides bar on jurisdiction that no court or authority in respect of matters referred to in sub-section (1) and (1A) of Section 13. Section 13 (1) provides that Railway Claims Tribunal shall have jurisdiction for compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway. Undisputedly, this is not a case in which the 'goods', i.e., the luggage was entrusted by the complainant to railway authorities, therefore, section 13 (1) AI is not applicable. So far section 13 (1) A (2) is concerned, Section 82 A of the Railways Act has been repealed by an amendment of Act in the year 1989.
Section 13 (1) (b) deals with jurisdiction of railway powers which is also not the case before us. Section 13 (I A) provides that the Railway Claims Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in respect of claims for compensation now payable under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989.
Section 124 A deals with the claim relating to compensation on account of untoward incident, therefore, it is clear that the present case cannot be the subject matter of section 124 A. From the above discussion, it is clear that jurisdictional bar in view of section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 does not operate in the instant case which relates to theft of luggage carried by the passenger by an unauthorised person/ persons.
Coming to section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 which 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 given a receipt therefor and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is 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".
On reading of the above, it is clear that the benefit of section 100 is available to the railway authorities unless it is proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on the part of railways or its servants. Both the Fora have returned a concurrent finding of facts that at the time of incident, the complainant was travelling in a reserved sleeper coach in which unauthorised persons entered the compartment. The complainant did protest against the unauthorised entry of persons and even reported the matter to the guard and asked him to send the TTC who was not present. The railway administration did not present the entry of unauthorised persons into reserved sleeper coach and thereafter ensure the removal of those unauthorised persons even after the matter was brought to their notice by the respondent. Thus, it is writ large in this case that the complainant had suffered loss due to the careless and negligence on the part of the employees of railways, as such the benefit of section 100 cannot be claimed by the petitioner.
We have carefully gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Ram Balak Pandey the complainant had booked motor cycle spare parts with the railway authority and in the case of General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur Zone (Vaishali) vs Manoranjan Kumar it was not the case of any unauthorised passenger travelling within the railway compartment. Hence, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand. No other argument has been raised.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts returned by the Fora below in revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed. Since, we have dismissed the revision petition on merit there is no need to give any findings on condonation of delay.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER