ORDER As per Han'ble Justice Shri V.K. Agarwal, President:- 1. This appear under section 15 or the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 31.8.05 in complaint No. 74/2004 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) directing the appellant South Eastern Railway, to pay to the complainant/respondent; compensation of Rs. 15,500/- as also cost of Rs.300/-. 2. Indisputably complainant /respondent along with his family members were traveling from Agra to Bilaspur by Gondwana Express on 9.1.04 in AC. Sleeper Class. The complainant at Bilaspur discovered that his suitcase was stolen on way. He lodged report with GRP, Bilaspur upon which an offence was registered. 3. The complainant averred that AC. Sleeper coach in which, he was traveling was unguarded. The attendants were totally non co-operative and had to be woken up and pleaded ignorance about the incident as would be clear from his report lodged with the GRP Annexure A-2, of the complaint. According to the complaint, he suffered a loss of Rs.20,000/- on account of theft. Besides the above amount compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards mental suffering and physical inconvenience caused to him was also claimed. 4. The complaint was resisted by Railway Administration the Appellant/ opposite party, therein. It was denied that there was any theft. It was averred that TIE was present and FIR book was available with him, but the complainant did not lodge the complaint with the TIE. It was further averred that the complaint was barred under section 100 of the Railway Act. 5. The District Forum in the impugned order held that the appellant committed deficiency in service. It was held that the appellant's averments that the TIE was available with the FIR book in the coach, has not been duly established and that the appellant failed to make adequate arrangements for the safety of the luggage carried by the complainant and other passengers which amounted to deficiency in service. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of the articles and Rs. 500/- for mental suffering was awarded to the complainant respondent. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the complaint was barred in view of section 100 of Railway Act, which reads :- "100. 15,000/- for loss of the articles and Rs. 500/- for mental suffering was awarded to the complainant respondent. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the complaint was barred in view of section 100 of Railway Act, which reads :- "100. Responsibility as carrier of luggage - A Railway Administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration of delivery of any luggage unless a Railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt there for, 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 was submitted that since the luggage alleged to have been stolen was not entrusted to the Railways, it could not be held liable for the alleged theft. 8. It may be noticed in the above context that, the complainant in his report (Annexure A-2) to the complaint has specifically stated that there was no TIE or GRP personnel in the coach. It was further averred that the coach was not locked, attendants were sleeping and when they were awakened they pleaded ignorance about the incident. It could be clear from above that TIE was not in the coach and the coach was not duly locked and that there was no FIR book as has been alleged by the appellant in their written version. It may further be noticed in the above context that though the appellant Railway Administration in their written version stated that TIE was present; however, the name of the TIE has not been specified in the written version; nor an affidavit of the said TIE has been filed in support of the contentions as above. It is also common knowledge that the coaches of the Railway Administration generally remain unattended and TIE and Security Guards etc. are not available in the reserved coaches. 9. Besides the complainant has also alleged that the coach was not duly locked and no proper security arrangements were made to safeguard against incident of theft etc. and that the coach attendants were sleeping and not vigilant and alert. are not available in the reserved coaches. 9. Besides the complainant has also alleged that the coach was not duly locked and no proper security arrangements were made to safeguard against incident of theft etc. and that the coach attendants were sleeping and not vigilant and alert. No specific denial or material in rebuttal has been produced by the appellant Railway Administration. 10. In the circumstance, it would appear that appellant Railway Administration has failed to prove that there was adequate security arrangement for the protection and safety of passengers and articles carried in the coach, in which the complainant was traveling. The allegation that TIE was present with FIR book seems to be devoid of merit as has been rightly held by the District Forum. 11. It may further be noticed that section 100 quoted above states that Railway Administration would not be liable for the loss, destruction, damage etc. of the luggage which has been booked, unless it is proved that the loss and destruction etc. was due to the negligence or misconduct on the part of the servants of Railway Administration. In the foregoing circumstance narrated' above, it is clear that there was negligence or misconduct on the part of one servants of Railway Administration and therefore, the protection of section 100 Railways Act cannot be successfully availed of by the appellants Railway Administration. 12. It may be noticed that National Commission in Union of India and ors. Vs. Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave and anr dealing with similar question has after considering the duties of TTE of sleeper coach etc. observed :_ "11. The above duties clearly show that there is a responsibility cast on the TTE attached to the second class sleeper coach to be very vigilant about anyone other than the reserved tickets holders entering the compartment, to such an extent that he is required to prevent even a relation of the passenger holding a platform ticket who comes to see off a passenger from entering a coach. The TTE is particularly required to take special care in the night as brought out SL No. 16 and 17. SL No. 14 clearly casts a responsibility on him to ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move. The TTE is particularly required to take special care in the night as brought out SL No. 16 and 17. SL No. 14 clearly casts a responsibility on him to ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move. In the case before us, it is the contention of the respondent that the intruder came when the train was on the move in the night and this has not been seriously challenged. Admittedly, the TTE has failed in the performance of his duties which lead to the incident of theft. The arguments of the petitioner that the rules now here provide that there should be a TTE for each sleeper coach cannot be accepted because then the impressive list of duties which would remain only on the paper since they cannot be effectively enforced." The National Commission in the said case also referred with approval to the decision of M.P. State Commission in G.M. Eastern Railways and ors. Vs. Smt. Malti Gupta in which it was observed that people while traveling and availing services of Railways, should be provided with safety of person and property, while traveling in reserved compartments. In the said case of G.M. Eastern Railway- (Supra) the State Commission while dealing with the question of theft of suitcase from the reserved compartment by some unauthorised person, held that the Railways committed deficiency in service. 13. Similar view has also been taken by the Karnatka State Commission in Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railways and ors. Vs. Ms. Subhashini L. Katka in which, it was observed that in case there was negligence on the part of Railway personnel and doors were not closed by the Railway attendants resulting in theft, the Railway department would not be protected under section 100 of the Railways Act. 14. In the foregoing circumstance, we hold that there was negligence on the part of the personnel of appellant Railways, in not taking proper precautions, resulting in the incident of theft. Hence, appellant Railway cannot avail of the protection of section 100 of Railways Act. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the complainant has not specifically stated as to which place the theft was occurred; and therefore, the complaint before the District Forum, at Bilaspur was not competent. The submission as above obviously is misconceived and cannot be accepted. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the complainant has not specifically stated as to which place the theft was occurred; and therefore, the complaint before the District Forum, at Bilaspur was not competent. The submission as above obviously is misconceived and cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that the complainant was traveling from Agra to Bilaspur and on the way his suitcase was stolen. He, however discovered theft as above at Bilaspur. It is thus not clear as to when the suitcase was stolen. Therefore, the complaint could be lodged any where between Agra to Bilaspur. Moreover, since the appellants have their office at Bilaspur also, the complaint could be competently filed & heard at Bilaspur In the above context similar contention of the Railway Administration, was repelled by Karnataka State Commission in Chief Commercial, Manager Southern Railways and ors. (Supra) where in it was observed that in view of section 11(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, complaint could be filed in any District For a, in whose territorial jurisdiction the Railway line on the particular route by which the complainant traveled. Hence, the contention as above of the learned counsel for the appellant, cannot be accepted. 16. Learned counsel for appellant Railway Administration also submitted that Railway could to have foreseen the occurance of thefts, therefore it could not be held liable for deficiency in service. Learned counsel in the above context referred to the decision in Sumatidevi M. Dandwate Vs. Union of India and ors. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The facts in brief of the said case were that an old lady was traveling in first class AC coach from Nagpurto Bombay. On way several miscreants entered the coach and looted her personal belongings being carried with her. The Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the circumstances observed that Railway Administration in spite of prior knowledge did not make any effort or devised measures to curb lawlessness indulged in by ticket-less passengers and therefore it committed deficiency in service. The facts situation of the said case however cannot be said to be the only situation, in which the Railway Administration would be liable for deficiency. There can be variety of circumstances, other than those involved in the said case, which may lead to the conclusion of deficiency in service by the Railways. The facts situation of the said case however cannot be said to be the only situation, in which the Railway Administration would be liable for deficiency. There can be variety of circumstances, other than those involved in the said case, which may lead to the conclusion of deficiency in service by the Railways. Moreover, the observations as above certainly point out to the fact that in case of loss of luggage by the bona fide passenger the Railway Administration is liable. 17. It would therefore be clear that the Railway Administration having committed deficiency in service was liable to pay compensation to the complainant! respondent, as has been rightly held by the District Forum. 18. Learned counsel for appellant also cited the decision of Karnatka State Commission in Bhima Rao Vs. Southern Railways. However, the facts of that case were entirely different. It appears that acid was thrown on a passenger when he was about to enter the Railway compartment. It was held therein that Consumer Commission had no jurisdiction to try the case, for compensation for the above incident. However, as the present complaint is regarding theft of his suitcase, the ratio of the said decision, would not in any manner apply to the complaint in hand. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Mahrashtra State Commission in Dr. Raju Nathani Vs. General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate Mumbai in which the State Commission took the view that the complainant was not entitled to approach District Forum in case of loss of luggage. However in view of the decisions cited above including that of the National Commission, the decision in Dr. Raju Nathani would not render and assistance to the complainant's case. 19. Accordingly we find that the complainant had to suffer loss on account of theft of his personal belongings carried in a suitcase, while traveling by train from Agra to Bilaspur on account of negligence, omission or misconduct on the part of the appellant's employee. Hence he is entitled to get compensation. The finding as above of District Forum are affirmed. The compensation does not appear to be excessive and hence it does not call for any interference. This appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal Rejected.