State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ministry Of Indian Railway & Ors. vs Ms. Nidhi Sharma on 26 May, 2023
FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution:23.12.2021
Date of hearing:10.03.2023
Date of Decision: 26.05.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.-76/2021
IN THE MATTER OF
1. MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,
HEAD OFFICE: RAIL BHAWAN,
RAISINA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110001
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
NORTHERN RAILWAYS,
BARODA HOUSE,
NEW DELHI-110001.
(Through: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
MS. NIDHI SHARMA
D/O SHRI DAYANAND SHARMA,
R/o H.NO 296, POST OFFICE GALI,
KAPASHERA BORDER, NEW DELHI
....Respondent in person
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 19
FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL (GENERAL)
Present: Mr. Satish C. Pawar, Inspector Legal of Appellant.
Mr. Ankit Kumar, Counsel for Respondent.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"The facts in brief are that the Respondent/Complainant boarded Train No. 12818 "Jharkhand Express" on 18.02.2016 from Anand Vihar Terminal, Delhi to Ranchi with her two luggage bags, which were properly locked with chain. On 19.02.2016, when the Respondent/Complainant woke up in the morning around 7 a.m., she found that one of her luggage (trolley bag) containing the following articles was missing by cutting of chain:
1. Certificates of 10th, 12th and Graduation
2. Diamond ring worth Rs. 67,850/-
3. Camera worth Rs. 14,999/-
4. Sarees worth Rs. 18,000/-
5. Denim Jeans worth Rs. 12,000/-
6. Trolley bag worth Rs. 5,000/-
7. Other clothes and valuable worth Rs. 8,000/-
The total amount comes to Rs. 1,25,849/-
She tried to lodge complaint for the same with officials on duty, but neither of the officials including police personnel helped her nor took the responsibility. Thereafter, the Respondent/Complainant called GRP and lodged a written DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023 FIR at Mughal Sarai Station on 19.02.2016. It was stated that till date, no action was taken by the concerned officials of OPs.
The Respondent/Complainant sent a legal notice dated 02.04.2016 to all OPs, reply of which was not satisfactory. Hence, the Respondent/Complainant prayed for award of claim/compensation of Rs.5,25,849/- with 18% interest and litigation cost."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 28.02.2019, whereby it held as under:
"We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. First and foremost the issue is, deciding on the preliminary objection taken by OP that the Respondent/Complainant was not a consumer qua OP:
As per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, "Consumer" means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which been paid or promised or partly paid [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023 of the first mentioned person "[but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]; And as per Section 2(b)-"Respondent/Complainant " means- A consumer; or......
The Respondent/Complainant had booked the ticket from IRCTC (Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation), which handles the catering, tourism and online ticketing operations of India Railways. Thus, the conjoined reading of Section 2(b) and 2(d)(ii), of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, once, the Respondent/Complainant has availed the services of India Railways, she becomes the consumer qua OP.
Secondly, with respect to territorial jurisdiction, the Respondent/Complainant had boarded the train from Anand Vihar, thus, part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore, this Forum is competent to adjudicate the present complaint.
Another defence taken by OP was that Respondent/Complainant had not booked her luggage with OP, thus they were not liable under Section 100 of the Railways Act.
Hon'ble National Commission in "Northern Railway Vs Neetu Gupta & Anr; in RP No. 3164 of 2017"', observed that: The jurisdiction of court or an authority other than the Railway Claims Tribunal would be barred only in the matters in which the said tribunal would have jurisdiction in terms of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act. A perusal of Section 13 as DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023 extracted hereinabove would show that the said tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant compensation to a passenger who has lost the luggage being carried by him or with him on account to the negligence of the Railway employee. The jurisdiction of the tribunal is restricted to the goods or animals entrusted to the Railway administration for carriage and compensation payable under Section 82 A and 124 A of the Railways Act. Though the tribunals would also have power to award compensation on account of an untoward incident in terms of Section 124 A of the India Railways Act, the compensation on account of loss of carriage being carried by passenger with him does not come under the jurisdiction of the Railways Claim Tribunal. Consequently the jurisdiction of Courts and Authorities would not be barred in respect of such a claim.
It was further observed in Northern Railway (Supra) that Indian Railways will not be responsible for the theft of loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them unless it is shown that such loss of theft occurred due to negligence on the part of Railways or any of its employees. The Respondent/Complainant had taken due care by keeping her luggage locked and chained even though she was travelling in reserved compartment, thus it was the duty of OP to make sure that no unauthorized entrants were allowed. The theft of the luggage of Respondent/Complainant show the lapse on the part in performance of their duty.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023
Respondent/Complainant has successfully proved that there were officials/ guards on the train, as evident from the photographs annexed with the complaint. It was their duty not only to maintain the law and order, but also safeguard the passengers and their luggage. Therefore, OP is deficient in services.
Due to the omission on the part of the employees/ staff of OP, in discharging their duty, the Respondent/Complainant lost her class 10th, 12th and Graduation certificates alongwith other valuable articles, which included Jewellery, clothes, camera, trolley etc. She has placed on record the photographs of the articles. During the course of argument, upon enquiry the Respondent/Complainant informed that bills were in the stolen luggage itself. At the same time, articles mentioned in the FIR registered with UP State Railways Police which of date 19.02.2016. The Respondent/Complainant has given the description of the stolen articles as "jewellery, camera, certificates and clothes". The photographs placed by the Respondent/Complainant are of two pair of "diamond earrings" but in the complaint as well as in the legal notice dated 06.04.2016, it has been mentioned as "diamond ring"
worth Rs.67,850/-, which creates the doubt on the veracity of the Respondent/Complainant 's claim. The Respondent/Complainant could file duplicate bills for the alleged jewellery to support her contention, which she did not, but at the same time, the factum of theft is not disputed.
DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023
However, in the absence of bills we award lump sum of Rs.50,000/-, which will suffice in the interest of justice. Compensation on account of mental agony and harassment for Rs. 10,000/- including litigation expenses is also awarded in favour of Respondent/Complainant as the staff/ employees of OP failed to discharge their duty. It is further directed that the amount awarded should be deducted from the salary of delinquent employees."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred the present Appeal contending that the Respondent is not entitled to any relief under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the definitions of "Complainant", "Complaint", "Consumer Dispute" and "Service" as defined in Section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 do not cover the claims arising in the present matter which pertain to theft of articles in the train, and therefore, as per the aforesaid definitions, the controversy involved herein is not a "Consumer Dispute". Secondly, it is submitted that the District Commission (East) had no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint since the office of the Appellants is located in Connaught Place and further, the cause of action arose at Mughal Sarai which is outside the jurisdiction of the District Commission (East). Thirdly, it is submitted that the Respondent/Complainant did not book the articles as mandated by the Railway Rules and in view of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, no liability can be affixed on the Appellants for un-booked luggage. By pressing the aforesaid contentions and submissions, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the Impugned Judgment Reliance has been placed reliance upon the following precedents:
DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023
i. Sonic Surgicals v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010) 1 SCC 135), and ii. Hemant Vasant Bhavsar & Anr. Vs Union Of India, Central Railway (F.A. No. A/144/2010 decided on 31.03.2011- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra)
4. The Respondent has filed the reply and has stated therein that the train was boarded from Anand Vihar Terminal and a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission (East), Saini Enclave Delhi-110092), making it a competent authority to adjudicate the matter. Secondly, it is submitted that the Respondent took due care of her belongings by keeping them under lock and chain and as such it was the responsibility of the Appellants to ensure the safety of the compartment and prevent unauthorized persons from entering therein since she was travelling in a reserved compartment. Thirdly, it is submitted that follow-up visits to the GRP officials led to the finding that on the night of the incident, other passengers of the train travelling in the reserved compartments also got their luggage stolen, thus strongly indicating towards the deficiency on part of the Appellant. Reliance has been placed upon the following decisions:
i) Southern Eastern Railway vs. Ku.Bharati Arora, I (2004) CPJ 114 NC
ii) G.M. South Central Railway vs R.V. Kumar and Anr, 2005 CTJ 862 (CP) (NCDRC)
iii) Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay vs Union of India & Ors. II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC):2004 (3) Supreme 291 In light of the aforesaid decisions and averments, the Respondent has prayed for the dismissal of present Appeal.
DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsels for the parties at length.
6. The first preliminary issue that falls for consideration before us is whether the said dispute falls within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7. To resolve the issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to F.A. No.451/2015 titled as 'Western Railway vs Vinod Sharma' decided on 18 January, 2017, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission held as follows:-
"17. A plain reading of the provisions quoted above from the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 indicates that an elaborate mechanism has been laid down for providing compensation in the event of accidents, untoward incidents and allied matters, during the course of the operations, carried out by the Railways and for that purpose, the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims Tribunal have been laid down. It is to be determined, however, whether keeping in view the above provisions, the consumer fora shall also have the jurisdiction to deal with the matters, involving railway accidents. The issue has come up for consideration from time to time before the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Commission as well. It has been observed that the Consumer Protection Act is a special legislation, enacted to provide better protection for the interests of consumers in diverse fields. It is true that for specific sectors such as banking, finance, insurance, supply of electricity, entertainment etc., appropriate mechanism has been laid down in the respective statute, to provide suitable DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023 relief to the consumers as per requirements. However, the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation, specially enacted for the protection of the consumers and provides an additional remedy in the shape of Section '3' of the Consumer Protection Act, which clearly lays down that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. A harmonious construction of the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act and the Railways Act etc. shall indicate that the jurisdiction of the consumer fora cannot be barred, even if the provisions to provide compensation are laid down in the Railway legislation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in their order in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs, I (2004) CLT 20 (SC) and in Trans Mediterranean Airways vs. Universal Exports, IV 2011 CPJ 13(SC) observed that, " having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers, the better provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section '3' seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts, unless there is clear bar.
18. In State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-op. Society, I (2003) CPJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, that by reasons of the provisions of Section '3' of the Act, it is evident that remedies provided thereunder DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023 are not in derogation of those provided under other laws. The said Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts or other statutory authorities."
8. On a cursory glance of the aforesaid precedent, it is clear that the remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") are in addition and not in derogation to those provided under other laws. The Appellants have contended that the definition of "Service", "Complainant" etc as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act do not cover the claims arising under the present dispute, and therefore the Respondent is not a consumer. Here we deem it appropriate to refer to the definition of service as defined under section 2(1)(o) of the Act :
(o) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, 6[housing construction], entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;
9. Furthermore clause (ii) of Section 2(1)(d) defines a "consumer" as under-
"(d) "consumer" means any person who- ..........
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023 under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person;"
10. Moreover as per section 2(1)(b) "complainant" means-
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State Government, who or which makes a complaint;
(iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest;
(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative;"
11. On a perusal of the above definitions, it is clear that service includes availing of any facility in connection to transport and there is not even an iota of doubt that a person availing such service shall fall within the category of a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. The present matter is a case which falls within the purview of deficiency in service as defined under-section 2 (g) of the Act, which reads as under:
"(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any services."
DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023
13. The scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is further contained in Section 3 which is reproduced below:
"Section 3. Act not in derogation of any other law- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force."
14. In view of the clear provision of the aforesaid section, the Complaints before the consumer commissions are in addition to all other remedies available under law, provided the case falls within the definition of deficiency in service or other related provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Based on the discussion above, it is clear that once there is a deficiency in service, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission is not ousted. Therfore, the present dispute falls within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such no ground is made out for ousting the jurisdiction of the District Commission in the present case.
15. The second preliminary issue that falls for our consideration is whether the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of the District Commission and whether the Complaint is maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.
16. Here, on a perusal of the record it is clear that the Respondent/Complainant booked the ticket in Delhi through IRCTC and boarded the train from Anand Vihar Terminal which leaves no room for doubt that a part of the cause of action arose at Anand Vihar area, Delhi. The Appellants have placed reliance upon the Sonic Surgical case (supra) and have raised a question of law that whether the forum constituted under the Act can ignore the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble National Commission in DISMISSED PAGE 13 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023 Sonic Surgical case (supra). Here, it is pertinent to mention that we have gone through the decisions relied upon by the Appellants and after a thoughtful perusal, we came to the conclusion that the aforesaid decisions are based on a disparate set of facts which are not applicable to the case in hand. For instance, the facts in Sonic Surgical case (supra) pertain to a claim of compensation against an incident of fire breakout in a godown whereas the case in hand pertains to theft in a moving train. We are of the view that in certain cases, cause of action is a continuous one and in some other cases, cause of action is one that may arise on a particular date, when the Opposite Party commits any particular act or the Respondent/Complainant gets the right to sue. A plethora of decisions laid down by the Supreme Court interpreted cause of action in different angles. Among various decisions, the following decision assumes significance in the present context. In Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association v. Union of India & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 294 : AIR 2001 SC 416), the Supreme Court followed the earlier decisions and put it in another angle:
"The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense "cause of action" means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. As noted above, the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact, which is necessary to be DISMISSED PAGE 14 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023 proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action."
In Sonic Surgicals v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010) 1 SCC
135), the Supreme Court reiterated the earlier proposition and put it in a simplified manner as:
"The expression cause of action means the bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability."
17. Therefore, what is to be considered in the present case is the set of facts which gave rise to the "right of safe journey" to the Respondent/Complainant i.e. the facts that the Respondent/Complainant boarded the train from Anand Vihar, purchased the ticket from IRCTC, lodged a complaint for theft, all when taken together, occasion a sufficient and continuous cause of action beginning from the time when the Respondent/Complainant boarded the train. In view of the above settled position of law, the District Commission is fully empowered to adjudicate upon the Complaint and is not paralyzed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
18. The last question required to be answered in the present case is, whether the Appellants can deny their liability to compensate the Respondent/Complainant by relying upon Section 100 of the Railways Act; and whether there is negligence on the part of the Railway Administration in providing measures whereby removal of luggage secured by lock and chain by an intruder became possible.
19. Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, reads as under:-
"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 DISMISSED PAGE 15 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023 given a receipt therefore, 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."
20. Hon'ble National Commission in RP 196/2016 titled as "Union of India and others v. Syed Mubuddin Rizvi decided on 21.07.2016, after dealing with Sections 13, 15 & 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, has observed as under:-
"It would thus be seen that the jurisdiction of a Court or an authority other than the Railway Claims Tribunal would be barred only in the matters in which the said tribunal would have jurisdiction in terms of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. A perusal of Section 13 as extracted herein above would show that the said tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant compensation to a passenger who has lost the luggage being carried by him with him on account of the negligence of a railway employee. The jurisdiction for the tribunal is restricted to the goods or animals entrusted to the railway administration for carriage and compensation payable under Section 82A & 124A of the Railways Act. Though the tribunals would also have power to award compensation on account of an untoward incident in terms of Section 124A of the Railways Act, the compensation on account of loss of the carriage being carried by a passenger with him does not come under the jurisdiction of the Railways Claims Tribunal. Consequently, the jurisdiction of Courts and other authorities would not be barred in respect of such a claim."
21. In the aforementioned dicta, Hon'ble National Commission also relied upon Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 and observed that it would thus be seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the DISMISSED PAGE 16 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023 Railways or any of its employees. In the facts of the aforementioned dicta it has been observed as under:-
"8. In my opinion, had the T.T.E. and/or coach conductor been present throughout and not sleeping, he would have certainly noticed the miscreants cutting the chain and leaving the compartment with the suitcase of the Respondent/Complainant . The very fact that the cutting of the chain and the theft of the suitcase was not noticed either by the T.T.E. or by the coach conductor clearly indicates that either they were not present in the coach as is alleged by the Respondent/Complainant or they were sleeping somewhere in the coach instead of taking rounds of the coach moving from one end to the other end. It would be pertinent to note here that this was the case of the petitioner that in fact no theft had taken place and a false report of theft was made by the Respondent/Complainant . This is also not the case of the petitioners in the reply filed before the District Forum that the Respondent/Complainant had not secured his suitcase using an iron chain and lock for the purpose as was alleged by him. Therefore, the case set out by the Respondent/Complainant remained practically unrebutted."
22. The aforesaid Revision Petition filed by the Railways was dismissed on the ground that since the theft of the suitcase happened due to negligence on the part of the railway employees, the petitioners are liable to compensate the Respondent/Complainant for the loss sustained by him.
23. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is to be noted that the Appellants have not contested the Respondent's submission that she did secure her luggage with lock and chain and the same was found to be broken. Therefore, an inference can be drawn in favour of the Respondent that she diligently took all safety measures and exercised caution on her side to protect her luggage. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that price difference between an unreserved ticket and a reserved ticket is quite high and the passengers who buy a reserved ticket have a reasonable expectation that they DISMISSED PAGE 17 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023 can commute with a certain level of security and safety. There is a responsibility cast on the TTE/Coach Conductor/staff attached to the reserved compartments to be very vigilant about anyone other than the reserved tickets holders entering the compartment, to such an extent that he is required to prevent even a relative of the passenger holding a platform ticket who comes to see off a passenger, from entering a coach. The TTE/Coach Conductor/staff is particularly required to take special care and to ensure that the doors of the coach are kept locked when the train is on the move. It is to be noted that a strong presumption is raised against the TTE/Coach Conductor/staff in charge of ensuring the security of the reserved compartment that they failed in the performance of their duties which led to the commission of theft. Lastly, as regards the contention that the Respondent/ Respondent/Complainant reported her goods as "Missing" and not "Stolen" in the Complaint lodged with GRP and did not produce the bills of the missing articles, we concur with the view taken by the District Commission as the factum of not placing the bills on record has been duly noted by the District Commission and a reasoned observation has been put forth in this regard in the Impugned Judgment.
24. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that it has rightly been held by the District Commission that the Appellants failed to prevent unauthorised persons to enter the reserved compartment and were deficient and negligent in not providing requisite safety and security to reserved compartments.
25. Thus, we do not find any reasons to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 28.02.2019, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East),Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, New Delhi - 110092. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
DISMISSED PAGE 18 OF 19 FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023
26. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Judgment.
27. FDR, if any be released in favour of the Respondent namely Ms. Nidhi Sharma.
28. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
29. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) J.P. AGRAWAL MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced On:
26.05.2023 DISMISSED PAGE 19 OF 19