The Railway Administration can be held liable for the loss of luggage due to negligence or misconduct, and complaints under the Consumer Protection Act can be filed in any District Forum within the territorial jurisdiction of the Railway line traveled.

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. 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