General Manager, South Central Railway vs PUSHPA BABU

THE opposite parties in C.D. 197/1999 on the file of the District Forum-II, Hyderabad are the appellants.

THE case of the complainant is that while she was returning from Guruvayur along with her husband by Hyderabad Express from Trichur on 14.9.1998, some unknown persons committed theft of her jewellery and other belongings from her suit-case during that night when they were sleeping. When she noticed this at about 3.00 a.m., she could not find either the Ticket Collector or Railway Protection Force anywhere. Hence, on reaching Gudur Station she complained to the Guard, but, merely advised her to report to Railway Police. Accordingly they had to break their journey to lodge a complaint before the Railway Police, but, no action was taken. THE deficiencies lodged by her in her complaint are, on pulling the chain the train did not stop, the shutter connecting one compartment with the other was found open, bolt for locking the shutter was not working, the Guard of the train did not receive the complaint, no railway official was present either in the train or outside to take action, only when the train was not allowed to proceed from Gudur the police official came, no intimation about the progress of the complaint despite repeated telephone calls from Hyderabad and the complainant was informed by the Head Constable as such thefts are common in that particular route. Hence, she filed the complaint. THE District Forum found that there is deficiency in service and accordingly directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of goods stolen and mental agony etc. together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Ex. A-1 and Ex. A-2 are the copies of the complaint dated 14.9.1998 and 19.9.1998. Ex. A-1 is the complaint with the Railway Police at Gudur. Either in Ex. A-1 or Ex. A-2, the details of stolen articles are not disclosed. Ex. A-3 is the list of articles stolen along with their value. But the complainant could not file any proof regarding purchase of those items. But the photographs Ex. A-4 and Ex. A-5 taken during a Wedding Ceremony on 11.9.1998 to which they attended show gold earrings, necklace and gold bangles and Ex. A-6 and Ex. A-7 show another pair of gold earrings, gold necklace and gold bangles. Ex. A-8 is the wedding invitation which took place at Guruvayur Temple, Kerala on 12.9.1998.

Section 100 of Indian Railways Act reads that the Railway Administration is not responsible for non-delivery of any luggage unless it is booked under a receipt and in case of accompanied baggage. There is no responsibility unless negligence or misconduct on the part of its servants is established. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that every coach provides for locking the bags under the berths with hooks and the complainant failed to keep her bags properly. Therefore, he contends that neither there is negligence nor misconduct on the part of its servants.

THE Apex Court in (1988) 3 SCC 67, stated that there is common law duty of taking reasonable care which must be attached to all carriers including Railways. THE National Commission in a case reported in II (1996) CPJ 31 (NC), observed that the Railway Administration failed to check the entry of unauthorised persons in the Reserved Railway Compartment and failed to remove them forcibly for which they are duly empowered by the Statute. For this dereliction of duty, the National Commission found that there is deficiency in service. The Counsel for the complainant places reliance on page 126 of Railway Time Table published by the South Central Railway wherein, it is stated that in case of loss or destruction or damage of the luggage, complaints can be lodged with the police/Train Conductors, Coach Attendants, Guards and G.R.P. Escorts. As either coach conductor or attendant was not present in the compartment and as the Guard refused to receive the complaint, the complainant and her husband had to break their journey to make the complaint before the Gudur Police Station. There is no proper explanation why the train did not stop when the chain was pulled. The complainant and her husband travelled in the Reserved Compartment in Sleeper Coach S-8 berth Nos. 1 and 4. The shutter between the coaches was left open during that night. What investigation was made by the appellants is not disclosed. Hence, the District Forum, rightly came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service, who have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that some articles belonging to the complainant were lost due to theft during that night. Now the question is, what is the quantum of loss sustained by the complainant. Except showing the photographs, no proof by filing any bills or receipts, was adduced. Having regard to the facts and circumstances that though there is a loss of some articles and jewellery we are unable to arrive at Rs. 26,400/- as claimed by the complainant, as the complainant also has not secured her baggage by locking them with chain to the hooks/rings provided under the berths of the passengers in the bogie.

THE complainant also is partly responsible to facilitate in the theft. Having regard to all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for the negligence proved towards the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties would meet the ends of justice. Hence, while dismissing the appeal, we reduce the quantum of compensation fixed by the District Forum from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. In all other respects, the order of the District Forum stands confirmed. Time for payment six weeks. Appeal dismissed.