UNION OF INDIA vs R P Prajapati

THE complainant/respondent booked a railway ticket for travel from Allahabad to Ambala Cantt. in a 1st class Coach on train no. 4517, Unchahar Express, on 20.01.2001. He was allocated Cabin No. ''A'' in Coach No. ''F'' of the aforesaid train. According to the complainant, he was the only bonafide passenger whose seat/berth was reserved in the aforesaid coach, cabin and train on 20.01.2001. This is also the allegation of the complainant that the attendant of Cabin No. ''A'' in Coach No. ''F'' of the aforesaid train allowed several passengers to travel in the aforesaid cabin, at Kanpur, in an illegal manner, after taking money from them. The complainant was carrying a suitcase containing cash, cloth etc. with him. The said suitcase was secured by him, using an iron chain for this purpose, by tying the iron chain around the iron bar of the berth which was allocated to him. When the complainant woke up in the morning of 21.01.2001, on the train reaching Aligarh Railway Station, he found that his suitcase containing cash, cloth etc. had been stolen after cutting the iron chain. The matter was brought to the notice of the Railway officials and eventually to the police. An FIR under Section 379 of IPC was registered at New Delhi Railway Station on 21.01.2001. Alleging negligence on the part of the Railway officials, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking compensation to the extent of Rs. 68,000/ -.

THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that no unauthorised passenger was travelling in the train and there was no negligence on the part of the Railway officials.

VIDE its order dated 15.07.2011, the concerned District Forum directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - to the complainant as compensation alongwith a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - towards the cost of litigation. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 12.08.2014, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Being still dissatisfied, they are before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

AT the very outset, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why the Union of India has decided to approach this Commission in a matter involving a petty amount of Rs. 15,000/ -, despite having lost not only before the District Forum but also before the State Commission. The learned counsel states that since there was no negligence on the part of the Railway officials, he was instructed to file this revision petition. He also relies upon Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, in support of his contentions that no compensation could have been awarded against the petitioners. Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, 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."

IT would be seen from a careful perusal of the aforesaid provision that it does not exempt Railway Administration from its responsibility due to the loss, destruction, damage etc. of a luggage in a case where it is proved that the said loss, destruction, damage etc. took place due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servant.

AS noted earlier, the case of the complainant is that the attendant of Cabin No. ''A'' of Coach No. ''F'' had unauthorisedly allowed a number of persons to board the train at Kanpur in an illegal manner, after accepting illegal gratification from them. The complainant, who himself witnessed the aforesaid persons boarding the train filed an affidavit before the District Forum in support of the aforesaid averment made in the complaint. The petitioners, however, did not produce the concerned attendant of Cabin No. ''A'' in Coach No. ''F'' of the train to controvert the averment made by the complainant on oath. Therefore, the deposition of the complainant that it was the attendant of the cabin, who had unauthorisedly allowed number of persons to board the train at Kanpur, accepting illegal gratification from them, remained practically unrebutted. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid part of the deposition of the complainant. Consequently, no fault can be found with the finding of facts recorded by the District Forum and accepted by the State Commission, holding the petitioners to be liable on account of the aforesaid misconduct of a Railway official. Had the coach attendant not allowed unauthorised persons to board the train at Kanpur, the suitcase of the complainant, which had otherwise been adequately secured by him, would not have been stolen. Therefore, this was a clear cut case, where Railway Administration was liable on account of the aforesaid misconduct of one of its official.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission. The revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with cost assessed at Rs. 5,000/ -, which will be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid account of this Commission. The Railway Administration shall be at liberty to recover the aforesaid cost from salary of the official who decided to file this revision petition, without any justification.