Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 607 (UTT)

INDIAN RAILWAY v. ANCHAL GARG

2013-09-25

B.C.Kandpal, C.C.Pant, Kusum Lata Sharma

body2013
ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 03 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants – opposite parties to pay to the respondent – complainant compensation of Rs. 52,000/- together with sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The above amount was directed to be paid within a month from the date of the order, failing which the above amount was directed to carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 08.08.2009, the complainant was travelling in train No. 4265 (Janta Express) from Lucknow to Dehradun in berth No. 17 of coach No. S-6 and her PNR number was 2362627129. In the morning of 09.08.2009 at about 5:30 a.m., when the train was between Kath and Seohara, some unknown thieves snatched the golden chain valuing Rs. 30,000/- from the neck of the complainant and also took away her hand bag, which contained two mobiles, cash of Rs. 2,000/-, two ATM cards, one PAN card, Advocate Registration, Tata AIG Licence and journey ticket. It was alleged that as soon as the train left Lucknow, some unauthorised persons entered in the reserved coach and the T.T.E. did not stop the said persons from entering in the reserved coach and the door was also not closed. It was further alleged that as soon as the golden chain and other valuables of the complainant were stolen, the complainant immediately made a complaint to the T.T.E., but no action was taken. The complainant lodged an FIR with the G.R.P., Dehradun, but her goods were not recovered. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The complainant lodged an FIR with the G.R.P., Dehradun, but her goods were not recovered. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The appellants filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that neither the complainant nor any other occupant of the said coach informed the said incident to the T.T.E.; that the complainant has claimed the excessive amount; that the responsibility of the safety of the goods carried by the passenger along with him/her during journey, is that of the passenger himself/herself and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 09.05.2012 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The complainant has alleged that as soon as the train left Lucknow, several unauthorised persons entered into the reserved coach and this fact was brought to the knowledge of T.T.E. and he was requested that the said unauthorised persons be brought down from the train, but he did not hear. The complainant has also alleged that as soon as her valuables were stolen, she made a complaint to the T.T.E, but her complaint was not seriously attended and that she lodged an FIR of the incident with the G.R.P., Dehradun, but her goods were not recovered. 7. The Railway Department has stated that the complainant has not booked her luggage and that the responsibility of safety of the goods is that of the passenger and that the complainant neither informed the said incident to the T.T.E., nor pulled the chain of the train. 8. It is true that in the time schedule published by the Railway Department, it has been stated that each passenger is responsible for taking care of his/her goods, but the said condition does not absolve the Railway Department from taking care of the passengers as well as their goods during the course of journey undertaken by them in a reserved coach. The complainant has specifically alleged in her consumer complaint that as soon as the train left Lucknow, several unauthorised persons entered into the reserved coach and inspite of brining the said fact to the knowledge of T.T.E., no action was taken by him. The Railway Department has not filed any evidence to show that the persons unauthorised travelling in the reserved coach, were brought down from the train by the T.T.E. and on bringing the incident of theft by the complainant to the notice of the T.T.E., any action was taken by him. This clearly shows that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Department. 9. In the case of Union of India Vs. Dr. Shobha Agarwal; III (2013) CPJ 469 (NC), the complainant and her daughter were travelling in AC Second Class and the suitcase was stolen by cutting chain and lock. It was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that since the complainant and her daughter were travelling in a reserved coach, it was the duty of T.T.E. to ensure that no intruders entered reserved compartment and failure on the part of T.T.E. to prevent entry of unauthorised person in coach was held to be deficiency in service. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Sanjiv Dilsukhraj Dave and another; I (2003) CPJ 72 (NC) = 2003 CTJ 196 (CP) (NCDRC), has held as under: “A major responsibility cast on the TTE in addition to examining the tickets is that of ensuring that no intruders enter the reserved compartments ……………… This is certainly a gross dereliction of duty which resulted in deficiency in service to the Respondents. The price difference between the unreserved ticket and a reserved ticket is quite high and the travelling public who buy a reserved ticket would expect that they can enjoy the train journey with a certain minimum amount of security and safety. …….. One has to presume that passenger would take reasonable care of his luggage. But, he cannot be expected to take measures against intruders getting easily into reserved compartments and running away with goods, when the railway administration is charged with the responsibility to prevent such unauthorised entry. …….. One has to presume that passenger would take reasonable care of his luggage. But, he cannot be expected to take measures against intruders getting easily into reserved compartments and running away with goods, when the railway administration is charged with the responsibility to prevent such unauthorised entry. We have entered the 21st century and we cannot carry on our daily life in the same age old fashion with bearing brunt of indifferent service provided by public authorities like Railways. People expect in the 21st century a modicum of efficient and reliable service, which provides at least safety of person and property while travelling in reserved compartments.” 10. Undisputedly, the complainant was travelling in a reserved coach and it was the duty of the T.T.E. to ensure that no intruders entered the reserved compartment. Since apparently there was a failure on the part of the T.T.E. to prevent entry of unauthorized person in the coach during the journey, the Fora below was right in holding the appellants liable for deficiency in service to the respondent – complainant in this regard. 11. So far as the plea that the complainant had not booked any goods is concerned, the stolen goods include the golden chain of the neck and the handbag. The complainant was not carrying any huge luggage with her, which required booking and payment of charges in lieu thereof. Thus, this plea does not provide any assistance or help to the Railway Department. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited a decision dated 02.07.2013 of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 34738-34739 of 2012; Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India and another. In the said case, the complainant was allotted berth No. 41 in sleeper coach No. S-2, but he had voluntarily placed his attaché case on berth No. 43. The said attaché case went missing. It was held that the railways can not be held responsible for the alleged loss of attaché case by way of theft. In the instant case, as is stated above, the complainant has specifically alleged in her consumer complaint that as soon as the train left Lucknow, several unauthorised persons entered into the reserved coach and inspite of brining the said fact to the knowledge of T.T.E., no action was taken by him. In the instant case, as is stated above, the complainant has specifically alleged in her consumer complaint that as soon as the train left Lucknow, several unauthorised persons entered into the reserved coach and inspite of brining the said fact to the knowledge of T.T.E., no action was taken by him. It is not the case of the Railway Department that the stolen hand bag of the complainant was not with her and she had put the same at a distance from the berth allotted to her. So far as non-booking of the goods is concerned, the said aspect of the matter has already been dealt by us above. Therefore, the cited decision does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not provide any help to the appellants. 13. The District Forum has elaborately considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly held that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Department and the Railway Department is liable to reimburse the loss occasioned to the complainant on account of their negligent act. We do not find any error in the said finding recorded by the District Forum. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the District Forum has taken the value of the stolen goods as Rs. 52,000/-. The stolen goods included golden chain valuing Rs. 30,000/- and hand bag containing two mobiles, cash of Rs. 2,000/-, two ATM cards, one PAN card, Advocate Registration, Tata AIG Licence and journey ticket. Neither in the FIR, nor in the consumer complaint, the complainant has mentioned the make, model and manufacturing company of the said mobiles. The District Forum has taken the value of the two mobiles at Rs. 10,000/-, which is justified. The District Forum has taken the value of the gold chain at Rs. 30,000/-, which is also justified. The cash of Rs. 2,000/- was also stolen and, thus, the District Forum was also justified in awarding the said amount too. The District Forum has awarded sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of other documents, which is not justified and the said award is liable to be set aside. Thus, the complainant is entitled to sum of Rs. 42,000/- on account of loss of articles/cash in the said incident. The District Forum has awarded sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of other documents, which is not justified and the said award is liable to be set aside. Thus, the complainant is entitled to sum of Rs. 42,000/- on account of loss of articles/cash in the said incident. So far as the interest awarded @9% p.a. is concerned, we are of the view that the same is on the higher side and in our considered view, interest @7% p.a. would be just and proper. Since the complainant has been awarded interest, there is no question of separate compensation for mental agony and hence the award of Rs. 10,000/- passed by the District Forum towards mental agony, is liable to be set aside. The litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum, are perfectly justified. This way, the appeal succeeds partly and is to be allowed accordingly and the order impugned is liable to be modified as such. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 09.05.2012 of the District Forum is modified and the appellants are directed to pay sum of Rs. 42,000/- to the respondent together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses, as awarded by the District Forum. However, costs of the appeal made easy.