IMPORTANT POINT
Railway Administration cannot escape its liability for negligence and deficiency in service in failing to prevent unauthorised persons assaulting passengers in railway compartment and taking away their luggage.

JUDGMENT

The appellant travelled by 1st Class Air conditioned berth from Nagpur to Bombay by Howrah-Bombay Mail. She was carrying her luggage which included gold, pearl, silver and diamond jewellery and other valuables valued at Rs. 1,11,756/-. While she was travelling, she was assaulted by some unauthorised passengers and her gold, silver, pearl, diamond and other valuables were taken away forcibly. This incident occurred on 4.12.1991. Thousands of persons entered into the compartment and assaulted the passengers, including the appellant. The said crowd was so violent that they broke the doors, window bars, glass panels, seating berths and toilets etc. This apart, the crowd committed so many other illegal acts of assaulting the bonafide passengers. They molested the women and even raped the young girl passengers. The appellant pulled the alarm chain three times, as a result of which, the train stopped at Igatpuri Station. She, alongwith other bonafide passengers got down at that station. She approached the Railway Authorities for protection, but, without any assistance. On reaching Bombay, she lodged a complainant with the police about the incident. The appellant approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission , for short) by filing a complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 9,32,256/-. The State Commission, after considering the material that was placed before it and on considering the rival contentions, allowed the claim of the appellant partly awarding total compensation of Rs. 1,41,756/-. The Railway administration, aggrieved by and not satisfied with the said order, filed an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission , for short). The National Commission, by the order under challenge in this appeal, set aside the order made by the State Commission. Hence this appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended that the National Commission was not right and justified on facts as well as in law in upsetting the order passed by the State Commission; the National Commission has set aside the order made by the State Commission without dislodging the reasons given by the State Commission in allowing the claim made by the appellant; the National Commission has set aside the order of the State Commission simply stating that the State Commission was not right in upholding that there has been a deficiency in service on the part of the Railway administration. The learned counsel added that having regard to the facts found, the State Commission was fully justified in ordering the compensation.

3. In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the order impugned in this appeal is just and supportable order. According to her, the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint made by the appellant; there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Railway administration; when an unruly mob entered into the railway compartment and caused damage on the person and property of the passenger, the Railway administration was helpless. In such a situation, no complaint could be entertained by the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4. We have considered the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties. As is evident from the order of the State Commission that opposite parties Nos. 1, 3, 5 & 6, i.e., Union of India, Chief Security Commissioner, Secretary, Home Department and Inspector General of Police, remained absent. No written version was filed by any of the parties on the date given. The complaint was posted for final hearing on 14.9.1993, on which date the Union of India and the General Manager, Central Railway filed written version jointly. The averment made in the complaint that the appellant travelled by train on that day when the incident happened, is admitted. However, the Railway administra