Union of India vs VINOD SANGHI

THIS is an application to condone the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. What is stated in the petitioners affidavit is that the copy of the impugned order was received by the first petitioner on 10.6.2003. As the second petitioner was the competent authority the order copy was sent to it which was received by it on 18.6.2003 and hence there is a delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. There is no explanation for not filing the appeal in time except stating that the order copy received on 10.6.2003 was sent to the second petitioner and the same was received on 10.6.2003. Hence this application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

EVEN otherwise, there are no merits in this appeal. . The opposite parties in C.D. No. 519/2001 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad are the appellants.4. The case of the complainants, who are husband and wife is that while they were travelling on 10.10.2000 from Hyd erabad in 3 Tier Sleeper with confirmed tickets in Train No. 7046 and were allotted berth Nos. 41 and 42 in coach No. 8124 with two suit cases, at about 2.15 a.m. some unauthorised persons entered the compartment and committed theft of the luggage of the complainants and other passengers at 5.30 a.m. When the second complainant got up and verified, she found that the luggage was missing by cutting the chain attached to the ring. The complainants kept Rs. 30,000/- cash and clothes worth Rs. 40,000/- in the suit-cases. The incharge GRP noted the address of the complainants and promised to send the FIR. They were forced to cancel their journey because of the theft and neither the ticket examiner, conductor, attendant or police constable could be traced when the theft occurred, hence the complaint.

The District Forum found that there is deficiency in service and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence the appeal.

IT is the case of the respondents/complainants that they have booked tickets from Hyderabad to Howrah and from Howrah to Jalpaiguri and return tickets. Ex. A1 is thereby of the complaint sent to the officer incharge, Khurda road on 11.10.2000. From the said complaint it can be seen that while travelling in Train No. 7046 down East Coast Express Hyderabad to Calcutta, which left Hyderabad on 10.10.2000 a theft occurred in S-5 coach and two suit cases were stolen by cutting the safety chain, though the matter was reported to the railway police, no FIR was registered. Under Ex. A2, certificate of posting, A1 complaint was sent. Ex. A3 is the legal notice dated 24.10.2000 and Exs. A4 and A5 are the acknowledgements. Ex. A8 is the copy of the complaint given to the officer incharge of khurda CRP disclosing the theft. Ex. A13 is the letter addressed by the complainant to the Chief Commercial Manager, Secunderabad. From this material, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service. The T.T.E. statement that he was in S-4 coach from 00.30 hours till the arrival of train at Khurda road and no complaint with regard to theft was received either by coach conductor or by the guard. The case of the respondents has been consistent and the overwhelming documentary evidence shows about the occurrence of theft. Therefore, the District Forum rightly found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellants submit that since the luggage is lost, the respondents have to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal. We cannot accede to this contention. The luggage is hand luggage and not booked luggage as such the respondents/complainants established negligence on the part of the railway officals and, therefore, they are entitled to compensation. From the evidence of the respondents and the documents produced as well as the circumstances, it is clear that neither the T.T.E., conductor, attendant or police constable were available anywhere near the compartment at the time when the theft occurred. Therefore, we are of the view that the District Forum rightly found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The compensation awarded by the District Forum is but reasonable. Hence we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum.

THE appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for payment six weeks. Appeal dismissed.