GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY Vs DHIRENDRA KUMAR RAI & ANR.

This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh dated 18.12.2013 resulting in dismissal of appeal preferred against the order of the District Forum.

Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondents filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Allahabad alleging that on 03.12.2006, they boarded Bombay Janta Express for travelling from Allahabad to Buxar. The complainants had reservation in coach no. S-5 berth nos. 17 & 20. There were several passengers having no reservation in the coach. The complainants reported the presence of unauthorised passengers to TTE but the TTE ignored their complaint and did not take any action. The train stopped at Mughal Sarai station.

When the train proceeded further from Mughal Sarai Station, one of the unauthorised passenger snatched the purse of complainant no.2. He was caught by the complainants. However said person threw the bag towards his friend who jumped out of the running train alongwith the bag. The said bag apart from the tickets of the complainants contained Rs.500/- cash, two gold chains of 28 grams, one gold ring, on pair of jhumka, one nose pin, one pair of silver kada of child besides keys and medicines. The total value of goods contained in the bag was about Rs.55,000/-. The bag snatcher was handed over to G.R.P. Police Station Mughal Sarai and FIR was registered. According to the complainants, the petitioner by allowing unauthorised persons to travel in a reserved compartment have indulged in deficiency in service which has resulted in loss to the complainants.

The petitioner opposite party in its written version took the plea that Allahabad District Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. The allegations on merits are also denied and it is pleaded that value of the contents of purse have been wrongly mentioned as Rs.55,000/-.

The District Allahabad on consideration of pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner opposite party has committed deficiency in service by allowing unauthorised persons to travel in the reserved coach despite of the fact that complainants made a complaint in this regard to the T.T.E. Thus, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.55,000/- with 8% interest thereon from the date of filing of complaint till the date of realisation besides compensation of Rs.10,000/- was awarded for mental harassment and Rs.5000/- was awarded towards cost of litigation.

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The State Commission however vide impugned order dismissed the appeal.

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Varma, Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that it has been passed in utter disregard of law and facts. Expanding on the argument, learned counsel submitted that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that since the complainants were carrying the valuables, they should have taken reasonable precautions which they failed to do so, and, therefore, the Railway cannot be held liable for snatching of purse containing valuables. It is further contended that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal in utter disregard of section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 as also Rule 146 of the Coaching Tariff No.24 Part-I Vol.-I as also the Rule 500 of the Coaching Tariff No.24 and Rule 506 of the Railway Coaching Tariff No.25.

Undisputedly, the complainants were travelling in the train on a valid reservation for berth no.17 & 20 of coach No. S-5 and that purse of complainant no.2 was snatched. Thus the question is whether Section 100 of the Railways Act as also the above noted rules of Coaching Tariff are of any avail to the petitioner?

Clause 146 of the Coaching Tariff provides that Railway administration is not accountable for any articles unless the same are booked and receipt for them is given by the railway clerk or agent. Rule 500 of the Coaching Tariff No.24 Part I provides that all articles taken into carriage are carried on the entire risk of the owner and Rule 506 of Railway Coaching Tariff No.25 provides that passenger himself is responsible for safety of his luggage and the railway authorities cannot be held liable for any loss or damage.

In our considered opinion, the above noted rules are of no avail in view of the statutory provisions i.e. 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 therefore and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also provided 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 Railway administration is not responsible for loss of luggage carried by the petitioner in his charge unless it is proved that the loss has occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway administration or on the part of any of its servants. In the instant case, the complainants have stated that there were unauthorised occupants in the reserved coach regarding which a complaint was made to the TTE but the TTE did not take any action to remove unauthorised persons from the coach. Thus, it is clear that the TTE failed to perform its duty and misconducted himself by not taking any action to prevent unauthorised persons to travel in the reserved coach. Therefore, case of the complainants squarely falls within the exception carved out in the later part of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989. As such, the impugned order of the foras below cannot be faulted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum Allahabad to entertain the complaint on the premise that theft of the purse took place at Mughal Sarai station. We do not find merit in this contention for the reason that admittedly the complainants had taken the railway ticket with reservation at Allahabad. Therefore, the services of the Railway administration obviously were availed by the complainants at Allahabad. As such, District Forum Allahabad has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In view of the discussion above, we do not find merit in the revision petition. Learned counsel has failed to point out any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.