The East Coast Railways, Rep. by Its General Manager, Chandrasekharpur and Another Vs. Kadambari Rama Joga Rao and Another - Court Judgment

Oral Order :  (Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)

1) The East Coast Railway represented by its General Manager and another are the appellants herein and they assailed the order dt.11.10.2012 made in CC 228/2011 on the file of Dist. Forum-II, Visakapatnam whereby the complaint filed by the respondents herein u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act was allowed and an amount of Rs. 5,03,500/- towards loss of gold ornaments etc., Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs were awarded.

2) The brief facts are that the respondents in this appeal are husband and wife, and on 8.2.2011 while they were travelling from Viskapatnam to Bhuvaneswar by Visaka Express two unauthorized women entered into the reserved compartment at Khurda Road Railway Station and took away the second respondents hand bag containing cash of Rs. 3,500/-, gold ornaments worth Rs. 3,50,000/- and also the credit card belonging to the first respondent. On account of said theft, the matter was reported to the railway staff but in vain. As the theft took place in a reservation compartment i.e., III-A/c-B1 compartment, according to the respondents/complainants the entire railway staff viz., attendant, TC and Railway Police are liable and it is because of their carelessness only the said theft had taken place. It is further alleged by the respondents/complainants that the said theft had taken place in connivance with the said staff. In those circumstances, stating that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties, the complainants were constrained to approach the Dist. Forum at Visakapatnam and filed the present complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act claiming a total sum of Rs. 7,08,500/- towards loss of gold ornaments, compensation and costs.

3) The said complaint was opposed by the opposite parties/appellants herein stating that railways are not liable u/s 100 of Raiway Act for loss of personal belongings of the passengers unless they are booked and established that such loss was on account of negligence on the part of railway administration. It is the duty of passengers to protect their personal belongings when the train was stationed on the platform. The question of intrusion of unauthorized persons into the reserved bogies is ruled out. The coach attendant and TTE have discharged their duties correctly and did not allow any unauthorized persons. All possible measures have been taken to prevent entry of unauthorized persons. The Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties, and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4) The Dist. Forum at Visakapatnam after giving opportunity to the opposite parties for filing their written version, and accepting the evidence on behalf of both parties marked Exs. A1 to A6 on behalf of complainants and Exs. B1 to B3 on behalf of opposite parties came to the conclusion that the alleged theft had taken place purely on account of negligence on the part of appellants which is nothing but deficiency of service and accordingly while allowing the said complaint awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,03,500/- together with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The said order is challenged by the opposite parties.

5) The learned counsel for the appellants filed written arguments.

6) The tenor of said written arguments is that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction for the reason that claims of this nature are to be decided by a separate forum i.e., Railway Claims Tribunals which are established under the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It is further stated in the said written arguments that unless and until the luggage is booked during the course of travel, the railways cannot be held to be liable for any theft. The learned counsel also placed reliance on various judgments of the National Commission:

Southern Railway Vs. Stalin Herald - IV (2012) CPJ 634 NC

Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India and Anr - III (2012) CPJ 55 NC.

Manju Roy Choudhury Vs. S.E. Railways - IV (2011) CPJ 106 NC.

Rakesh Patralekh Vs. Union of India and Anr - II (2010) CPJ 234 NC

7) Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants opposed the same stating that the Dist. Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the said theft had occurred solely on account of negligence on the part of said officials and in those circumstances the appellants are liable to pay the said compensation.

8) It is true that the Railway Claims Tribunals have come into existence to settle the claims of this nature. It does not mean that the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is barred . In addition to the Railway Claims Tribunals wherever there is deficiency of service and the complainants are able to establish that a particular action or inaction comes within the definition of deficiency as defined u/s 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Fora established under the Act can entertain the complaints of this nature. Accordingly, the said contention of the appellants is rejected. So far as the luggage is concerned, no doubt, it is true, as stated, is required to be booked and in the normal circumstances the said luggage will be carried in a brake-van but the luggage which is lost during the course of travel is not the luggage meant to be booked in a brake-van i.e., the jewelry which either be worn or kept in the hand bag carried by the passenger. Here is a case where the entire gold jewelry was kept in the hand bag of second respondent and in those circumstances the contention of the appellants that the same is not booked is totally untenable. So far as several cases which were cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in their written arguments, in our considered view, they have no application so far as the case on hand is concerned.

9) Recently the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India, Through its General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur Vs. Dr. (Smt) Shoba Agarwal in SLP (Civil) No. 3322/2014 against RP No. 602/2013 of the National Commission decided on 31.1.2014 dismissed the SLP confirming the orders of the fora below when the railway administration was directed to pay 1,50,000/- towards loss of articles (baggage) in a reserved compartment and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation. In the light of said order, the impugned order passed by the Dist. Forum at Visakapatnam-II is justified.

10) In those circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the said order and accordingly this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.