The Railway Department cannot be solely held responsible for the theft of luggage if the passenger fails to take adequate care and utilize alternative safety measures provided by the Department.

Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Sr. Member—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.7.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faziabad in Complaint Case No. 217 of 1992.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant was travelling in the 2nd class coach on 23.4.1992 in Lucknow Mail. At about 9.50 p.m. on the day he found his briefcase missing in which ornaments and cash was kept. A report of this incident was lodged at Charbagh Railway Station. The complainant has, therefore, lodged a claim of Rs. 25,000/- and compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The opposite parties did not contest the complaint inspite of notice given by the Forum. The case, therefore, proceeded ex-parte.

3. After hearing the case of the complainant and the evidence filed by him, the District Consumer Forum did not find any justification to decree the claim and the complaint was, therefore, dismissed.

4. Aggrieved of this order, the complainant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order.

5. In the memo of appeal, the appellant has stated that the evidence put up by him before the District Forum was not controverted and rebutted by the opposite parties and the Forum inspite of this has erred in rejecting the complaint. The loss of the suitcase of the complainants containing valuable articles was the direct and immediate consequence of the grave deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

6. Notices were issued to the opposite parties at certain stages. The Counsel for the opposite party also appeared before this Commission on 20.8.1993, 15.2.1995, but later on none appeared for the opposite parties. The appeal, therefore, proceeded ex-parte against the respondents.

7. The main controversy involved in this case is that the complainant who was travelling from Lucknow to Delhi in a 2nd class coach had lost his suitcase containing valuables and the Department of Railways was responsible for this negligence. The grounds advanced by the complainants are that unauthorised persons entered into the reserved compartment and it is the duty of the Railway Department to ensure that unauthorised persons do not barge into the reserved compartment. Since the Railways failed to stop the entry of the unauthorised persons, in the reserved compartment, the Railways are liable to pay compensation because the deficiency is on the part of the Railway Department. While arguing the case the learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the provisions of the Railway Manual at page 82. A perusal of the appeal file goes to show that the incident occurred at about 9.55 p.m. The departure time of the train from Lucknow is 10 p.m. Therefore, the alleged occurrence took place before the departure of the train. Even if it was the duty of the coach attendant as argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant to see that the unauthorised persons do not enter into the compartment, it is difficult to check the entry because at the halting place people keep on getting into the train and getting out of train and it is precisely for this purpose that the department of Railways keeps on cautioning the passengers travelling that they should take care of their luggage by themselves. It was the duty of the complainant to have locked his luggage properly and chained that to his seat. The department keeps on notifying this warning time and again in the passengers. If adequate care had been taken by the complainant then his suitcase could not have been stolen. For safety of the luggage the Department of Railways also carries other arrangements in the same train and if the complainant was so particular, he should have taken the recourse of this alternative and in that case if the theft had taken place, then he should have gone to the Railway Claims Tribunal to compensate his loss. The District Consumer Forum had rightly observed that the Railway alone cannot be held responsible for the theft because at the time the train is not moving, it is not