State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Northern Railway vs Balbir Singh on 25 September, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.
311/2014
Date of Institution
18/09/2014
Date of Decision
25/09/2014
Northern Railway through its Station Superintendent,
Railway Station, Chandigarh.
.Appellant
V E R S U S
Balbir
Singh # 3197, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.
...Respondent
BEFORE: JUSTICE
SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
SH.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
SMT.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:
Sh.Sunil K.Sahore, Advocate for the appellant.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.08.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:-
15. For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. OP is directed :-
i) To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for physical harassment, mental agony and deficiency in service.
ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.5100/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.
16. This order shall be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the compensation amount mentioned at S.No.(i) of the para aforesaid shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant booked two railway tickets Annexure C-1 and C-2 from Chandigarh for going to Kolkata alongwith his family. The tickets were from Delhi to Patna and then from Patna to Kolkata. The dates of journey were 6.11.2011 and 9.11.2011 respectively. It was stated that the complainant and his family members boarded the train from Patna and while the train was on its way to Kolkata. It was found that two suitcases of the complainant had been stolen. The complainant pulled the chain but the train did not stop. On the next Station, the complainant reported the matter to the Government Railway Police but they asked to report the matter to the Government Railway Police Station, Jhajha, where the luggage was stolen. It was further stated that the complainant reported the matter to the Police Station, Jhajha and case No.59/11 dated 10.11.2011 under Section 379 IPC was registered. A copy of the complaint and its translation in English are at Annexure C-3. It was further stated that the suitcases of the complainant were containing some gold, cash and clothes and the total loss amounted to Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant contacted the Opposite Party thereafter many times but to no effect. It was further stated that the Railway was under
an obligation to provide safety and security for the luggage of the passengers, but it failed to do so. The Opposite Party also refused to pay compensation. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3. In its written reply, it was stated that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint because the alleged theft of suit cases of the complainant took place on the way from Patna to Kolkata and the cause of action, if any, arose at Jhajha, where the complainant filed his complaint with the Government Railway Police (GRP). It was further stated that the complainant failed to implead GRP as the Opposite Party, which was a necessary party because the officials of the Railways duly reported the theft to the concerned authorities as required by law. It was further stated that the complainant was not covered under the definition of Consumer as defined in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further stated that the service under the Consumer Protection Act included only those articles, which were paid facilities and not those, which were free of cost. It was further stated that the complainant neither booked the suit cases nor paid any charges for taking the same with him. It was further stted that under Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, the Railway was not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of unbooked luggage. The responsibility of the Railways in case of loss etc. of the luggage being carried by the passenger in his charge on the basis of proven negligence or misconduct on the part of Railways applies only in case of booked luggage. It was further stated that the alleged theft did not occur due to the negligence or deficiency of the Railways and rather it was the carelessness and negligence of the complainant. It was further stated that the Railway authorities displayed at various places that the passenger was himself responsible for its own luggage. The Railways for the security of luggage arranged for strong iron rings under the seat so that the passenger could tie or lock his luggage with the rings but the complainant failed to use the said facility. It was further stated that the train was having adequate security/guard and the attendant was duly available in the coach but the alleged theft was never brought to their notice. It was further stated that no complaint or representation was ever received by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the allegations in the complaint were vague as the details of goods stolen had not been provided with documentary proof in support thereof. It was further stated that, the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
4. In his rejoinder, the complainant stated that the Opposite Party admitted the factum of theft and it was a reserved coach. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was to ensure the safety of the luggage in the reserved coach. It was further stated that the complainant was a consumer qua the Opposite Party and a passenger was allowed to carry 40 Kgs of luggage on a ticket as per Railway rules. The charges for safety etc. were charged in the ticket itself and being a reserved coach, the Railways were bound to provide safety. The luggage was booked only if it exceeded certain dimensions or the same was sent through goods train. It was further stated that the complainant pulled the chain but the train did not stop. The matter was duly reported to the police authorities and a case under Section 379 was lodged by the Police. It was further stated that the details of the goods were given to the police but the police had mentioned only gold, cash and clothes in the report. The gold included two gold bangles and ear rings worth Rs.40,000/- (approx.) and one gold chain worth Rs.25,000/- (approx.) of the wife of the complainant, cash of Rs.15,000/- and clothes of winter season i.e. sweaters, jackets etc. of Rs.20,000/- (approx.) of the complainant and his wife.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the theft of the suit cases of the complainant took place on the way from Patna to Kolkota. He further submitted that the complainant did not fall under the definition of a consumer as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He further submitted that as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, the Railway is not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of un-booked luggage. He further submitted that the responsibility of the Railways in case of loss etc. of the luggage being carried by the passenger in his charge on the basis of proven negligence or mis-conduct on the part of the Railways applies only in case of booked luggage. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong in holding that the TTE of the train failed to perform his duties, which amounted to negligence and also deficiency in service, as per codified duties of the TTE. He further submitted that since the complaint related to the offence of theft and the complainant was required to strictly prove that he was carrying the alleged articles with him and the theft occurred due to the negligence of the Railways. He further submitted that the theft took place due to the negligence of the complainant himself. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The perusal of the Railway tickets, Annexures C-1 and C-2 shows that the complainant purchased the same from Chandigarh and, as such, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant at Chandigarh. The District Forum, thus, had got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the complainant in this regard, being devoid of merit is rejected.
11. The next submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that the luggage was not booked with the Railways and since the services of the Railways were not hired by the complainant, therefore, as per Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, the Opposite Party was not liable and the complainant was not proved to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It is not disputed that the complainant made the payment of railway tickets for a reserved coach to the Opposite Party and hired its services. The complainant, thus, fell within the definition of a Consumer. The District Forum was also right in holding that the complainant was covered under the definition of a Consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Since the complainant alongwith his family members was traveling in the reserved coach of the Railways, it was, thus, the duty of the TTE to ensure that no intruder entered the reserved compartment of the Railways. The theft of two suitcases of the complainant took place from a reserved compartment and, therefore, it could not be ruled out that some intruder must have entered the reserved compartment who committed the theft of the suitcases. Had the TTE of the Railways been vigilant and careful then the entry of the intruders/some unauthorized persons must have been prevented in the coach during the night and the complainant did not have to face the mental agony and harassment due to the theft of his suitcases. While holding so, the District Forum rightly placed reliance upon the principle of law settled by the National Commission in Union of India & Ors.
Vs. Sanjiv Dilsukhraj Dave & Anr. [2003 CTJ 196 (CP) (NCDRC). In this view of the matter, the District Forum was right in observing that the TTE of the train failed to perform his duties, which amounted to negligence and also deficiency in service, as per codified duties of the TTE. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the District Forum was right in holding that the Opposite Party was deficient in rendering service to the complainant. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
13. The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced. Sd/-
25.09.2014 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[DEV RAJ] MEMBER Sd/-
[PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER cmg