Back
Raju Nathani - Appellant
Versus
General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai - Respondent
Decided On : 03/17/1998
Appeal No. 865 of 1994
.
Held: We read this Section 100 of Railway Act. 1989 as luggage booked with receipt whether they carry in the carriage or in their charge is the only luggage that can be claimed for from the Railways. This section is very relevant to be relied upon because what passenger carry with him is not in the knowledge of the Railway authorities considering millions of passengers use their service.
They cannot be held responsible for what they are not aware of. The relevant part in this section 100 where we read it as booked baggage paid for in carriage or in personal charge and not separate to distinguish in case of loss. Again no negligence is established on the part of railways. (Para 17)
Since complainants baggage is not booked with railways, our finding is no deficiency in service by the railways. Regarding the negligence, misconduct on its part or the part of any of its servants, it is once again rejected in the same section 100, it is applicable only if the consignment/luggage is booked for consideration. Even section 103 does not help the complainant as he is required to declare with receipt and then the extent of monetary liability will be considered. (Para 18)
As mentioned, and noted in the District Forums order the other point of, the size of the suit-case is larger in size than what is allowed in the coach, As for the luggage to be carried by second class passengers as per section 506.2 and rule 21, 2(1), 21-3(9) of the time table of railways where duties of coach attendant are stated, we note that for second class passengers who are not in A.C. compartment, the rules do not permit to expect the coach attendant to guard the personal luggage of passengers. (Para 19)
The coach attendant asked complainant to wait till the next station for the unauthorised persons to get down as they are daily commuters and the train from Bombay Central to Dadar station takes only ten minutes. These facts are also not properly established.
(Para 20)
Apart, it is not deficiency of services to explain to the complainant to wait for ten minutes for the other passengers to get down and it should be the complainants duty to guard his own luggage for those ten minutes.
(Para 21)
Complainants seats were occupied by them in ten minutes after the train started and thus the seats were not reallocated to anybody else. (Para 23)
The token relief allowed by the District Forum seems justified. The appeal for substantial relief cannot be entertained by us on the same grounds of negligence which were decided in the earlier order and there is no new evidence for us to think otherwise.
(Para 24)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
IMPORTANT POINT
Railways would not be liable monetarily for loss of personal luggage of passengers while travelling in train if such personal luggage is not booked with Railways for carriage as required by S. 100 of Railways Act. 1989 and such loss of personal luggage does not amount to deficiency in service on part of Railways under Section 2(g) of Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
2. This is an appeal by the complainant for enhancement of reliefs given by District forum where respondent was asked to pay Rs. 500/-.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were travel1ing from Bombay Central at 20.15 hrs on 29-71992 by Saurashtra Mail in second class sleeper coach S/2 berth Nos. 64.65 and 66. The complainant, his wife and old mother aged 62 years came to Bombay Railway Station from Ulhasnagar with 3 piece luggage. His luggage consisted of a big diplomat suit case, a small VIP suit case and VIP vanity box containing 13 tolas of pure gold ornaments, some silver, gold polished ornaments, cash, clothes and other valuables. The following incident as described by the complainant happened in a short journey from Bombay Central to Dadar Station. When the complainant entered his reserved compartment coach S/2. he found his seats were pre-occupied by unauthorised persons who refused to vacate inspite of repeated requests. He tried to find the conductor and could not trace him and therefore went to police constable for help in getting his seats. The constable advised him to wait a little while saying these people are daily commuters who will get down at Dadar or Borivli. Meanwhile his family sat on the other side of the bay and 'put one piece of luggage inside the berth the rest on the upper berth. At Dadar, these people got down and the complainant's family got back to their original reserved seats. While doing so, his mother checked and found the big diplomat suitcase consisting of the valuable was missing. On enquiring the co-passengers told that they had seen a suit case being taken away by those unauthorised occupants who got down at Dadar. The complainant lodged the complaint with Bombay Central Police.
4. These facts as narrated by the complainant are disputed by opposite party the Railways, stating the police enquiry was conducted and offenders could not be traced and the facts stated by the complainant need not be true as there is no proof at all.
5. The complainant submitted that the District Forum awarded compensation of only Rs. 500/-. Whereas he claimed Rs. 89.030/- and that is he entitled to a substantial compensation. His contention is that had the railway provided reserved seats to them at the commencement of the journey by preventing entry of unauthorised persons into reserved coach such incident of theft of suit case would have not occurred. Hence this is negligence by Railways and he deserved to be compensated fully.
(1) The above claim is contested by the opposite party the railways stating that personal luggage in consumers custody is his own responsibility and hence this complaint is not maintainable. The opponent raised the following technical and factual aspects arising from the rules and regulations of the Railway Act. 1989. The Railway administration is not rendering any service to the complainant in respect of this personal luggage in his custody under section 100 of the Indian Railways Act of 1989. The responsibility of Railways as carrier of luggage is "A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant had booked the luggage and given a receipt thereof and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge unless it also proved that the loss. Destruction damage of deterioration was due to the
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
