Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Jayarama Chouta, President;
Mr. Abdul Perwad & Mrs. Rama Ananth, Members
CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY & ORS.—Appellants
versus
MS. SUBHASHINI L. KATKAR —Respondent
Appeal No. 589 of 1999—Decided on 5.9.2002
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. A.N. Venugopala Gowda, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17-Brief-case containing articles worth Rs. 32,035/- which complainant was carrying with her during train journey was stolen-District Forum allowed claim-Appeal-Railway Time Table provided for duties of Couch attendant which included preventing entry of unauthorised person into couch by locking vestibule doors at night-Couch attendant had failed to perform that duty-Opposite party was not entitled to any protection under Section 100 of Railway Act-Impugned order suffered no illegality.
Coming to the merits of the case, we have to take cognizance of the argument advanced by Sri. Katkar who has emphasised on the duties and responsibilities assigned by the Railway Authorities to the couch attendants, the travelling ticket examiners and the train superintendents for the safety of the passengers and their personal belongings. At page 162 of the Railway Time Table wherein the duties of the couch attendant are listed, it is stated clearly that his duties include preventing entry of any unauthorised person into the couch by locking the vestibule doors at night between 22.00 hours and 6.00 hours. It is stated that when the complainant found that her suitcase was lost and when she wanted to report the matter, the Railway Protection Force Personnel were found sleeping during duty hours and they had to be woken up from their sleep. The only help rendered by them nevertheless was to inform the complainant that she should file a compliant at the Sholapur Railway Station in the morning. The couch attendant had evidently not closed the vestibule doors which was the reason for the theft to take place. According to the Dist. Forum the complainant has specifically alleged that the above personnel were negligent in their duties. Hence as rightly pointed out by the Dist. Forum the opposite parties are not entitled to any protection under section 100 of the Railways Act. Consequently, we fail to see any infirmity in the order passed by the Distt. Forum.
According to the complainant the suitcase contained articles worth Rs. 32,035/- which has not been disputed by the opposite parties in their pleadings. Hence we also find no shortcoming in the relief awarded by the District Forum.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 11(1)(b)-Theft of personal luggage of passenger in a moving train-Claim for loss-Territorial jurisdiction-Complaint could be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of opposite parties carried on business or had a branch office.
In the case of an incident of theft during railway journey, particularly theft of articles in the night when the train is in motion, it is indeed a difficult proposition to ascertain where the cause of action arose since by the time the theft is noticed and concerned TTE or the couch attendent or the Railway Protection Force Personnel are contacted and their response evaluated, the train might reach the jurisdiction of another Dist. Forum or may even reach the territorial jurisdiction of another State Commission. In such circumstance, it is hardly feasible and as a matter of fact hardly logical to argue that the complainant ought to have filed a complaint in the District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part arose. In the circumstances of theft of this nature in a moving train it is not so much the place where the cause of action arose that is material but the other jurisdictional alternative provided under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that is more relevant. In the instant case the relevant provision applicable for the purpose of jurisdiction is Section 11(1)(b), according to which a complainant can institute a complaint in a Distt. Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of the opposite parties carries on business or has a branch office, inter alia. According to this provision a complaint can be filed in any of the Dist. Forums in whose territorial jurisdiction any railway station lies on the particular route since the Department of Railways carries on its business in its various railway stations scattered all over the country. On this premises the complainant is entitled to file a complaint in the Dist. Forum in whose jurisdiction any of the railway stations from Mumbai to Banglore are situated. In other words, under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act the complainant is entitled to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Dist. Forum at Mumbai or Sholapur or Bangalore or any other Dist. Forum enroute. In this view of the matter the view taken by the Dist. Forum that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint will have to be supported.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 12 and 17-Railway Claims Tribunal Act-Sections 13 and 15-Theft of personal luggage of passenger-complainant in moving train-Complaint claiming compensation alleging deficiency in service-Bar on jurisdiction of Forum-Since goods lost was hand luggage which had not been entrusted to opposite parties, section 13 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act had no applicability and bar under Section 15 of the Act was not attracted.
It is evident from sub-clause (i) above that the jurisdiction exercisable by the Railway Claims Tribunal is in relation to the responsibility of the railway administration in respect of claims for compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by Railway. In the instant case the goods lost was a hand luggage which was not entrusted to the opposite parties for safe-keeping. Hence Section 13 has no applicability in the instant case. Consequently Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act also does not come in the way of the Dist. Forum exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Consumer Projection Act, 1986, since the bar of jurisdiction envisaged under section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act relates to matters covered under Section 13 of the same Act. Hence we see no infirmity in the view taken by the District Forum that Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act does not take away the jurisdiction of the District Forum to adjudicate upon the case.
Mr. Abdul Perwad, Member—In this appeal the short point for consideration is whether the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable.
2. The facts of the case as set-out in the complaint are that the complainant’s suitcase containing articles valued at Rs. 32,035/- was stolen when she was travelling on 12.1.1997 by Kurla Express train in IInd Class 3 sleeper tier coach (ladies coupe) from Mumbai to Bangalore. The theft is stated to have taken place at 3 a.m. on 13.1.1997 somewhere near Sholapur junction. She immediately went to the Railway Protection Force Personnel (RPFC) travelling in the same train in coach No. 56 and found that they were fast asleep. Hence, she woke them up and as advised by them, lodged a complaint at Sholapur Police Station at 7 a.m. on 13.1.1997. She also gave a complaint to the TTE at Sholapur who was travelling in the same train. However, it is alleged that the stolen articles were never recovered and hence she approached the District Forum for the redressal of her grievance.
3. The opposite parties sought to take shelter behind Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act before the District Forum and also contended that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was also contended that locking arrangements were available under the lower berth and the complainant should have locked the suitcase with the help of the chain provided under the berth to avoid theft.
4. The District Forum however came to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that in the facts and circumstances of the case the opposite parties were negligent and hence the complainant was entitled to the relief claimed by her. The District Forum also awarded costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant in the proceedings. This appeal is directed against the said order of the District Forum.
5. We have heard Mr. A.N. Venugopal Gowda, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Katkar on behalf of the respondent. The learned Counsel brought to one notice that under the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the opposite parties are not liable for any theft of the personal effects of the complainant. He also brought to our notice that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the cause of action had not arisen within its jurisdiction but had taken place somewhere near Sholapur which is in Maharashtra State. It was also pointed out that when the complainant herself was negligent in keeping her personal effects safe, despite having opportunity to do so, no stigma of deficiency in service could be attributed to the opposite parties. In support of his contentions the learned Counsel also cited the following decisions while summing up his arguments on the above lines.
(1) II (1993) CPJ 1089
(2) I (1997) CPJ 290
(3) Appeal No. 865/1994 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra.
6. Mr. Katkar however, contended that there was clear negligence on the part of the officials of the opposite parties inasmuch as the complainant had found that the Railway Protection Force Personnel had been sleeping during duty hours and that the coach attendant had also not taken care to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the coach in the night. He also pointed out that the coach attendant was responsible for locking the vestibule doors at night which he had failed to do, thereby allowing free access to the person or persons who had stolen the suitcase of the complainant. He, therefore, stated that the District Forum was wholly right in finding fault with the opposite parties and hence the appeal filed by them is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the case of an incident of theft during a railway journey, particularly theft of articles in the night when the train is in motion, it is indeed a difficult proposition to ascertain where the cause of action arose since by the time the theft is noticed and the concerned TTE or the
