IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint of theft must be proved by cogent evidence.

S. Coari, Member—The present Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 30.9.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II, in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C. No.405 of 2009 wherein the learned District Forum dismissed the petition of complainant on contest without any order as to cost.

2. The case of the Appellant/Complainant before the learned District Forum, in brief, was that on 21.10.2008 the complainant being accompanied by his wife was returning from Varanasi by availing 2334-Dn Bibhuti Express. The complainant was the bona fide passenger having purchased valid tickets for the journey According to the complainant, after boarding the train the complainant put his suitcase containing valuables including SBI ATM card belonging to his wife with the help of an iron chain underneath the berth occupied by them. It was the further case of the complainant that in the following morning it came to the notice of the complainant that the suitcase containing the valuables, etc. as mentioned, was missing as the same was taken away by some miscreants and/ or unauthorized persons after breaking the iron chain. Later on it also came to the knowledge of the complainant that some miscreants after using the SBI A TM card so lost during the train journey had siphoned off a substantial amount from the same. According to the complainant, during the aforesaid train journey he noticed that there was no proper security arrangement and attending guards in the compartment in question which, according to the complainant, tantamounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the railway administration, for which the complainant has suffered huge amount of financial loss and hence, the petition of complaint.

3. The Respondent/Railways contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complainant contending inter alia that the petition of complainant does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the absence of any deficiency in service at the instance of the railway administration the case was not maintainable. According to the Railways, the complainant has not produced any cogent and reliable evidence in support of his allegation that during transit of railway journey the theft/misappropriation of the articles of the complainant was committed and that the articles so alleged to have been stolen were actually in the possession of the complainant and that the petition of complainant having been filed after lapse of a considerable period the same is not believable and/or acceptable and that the petition of complainant was liable to be dismissed with cost.

4. The learned District Forum while disposing of the petition of complainant has observed that the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegation by adducing cogent and reliable evidence and that in the absence of any positive material in support of the complainant’s allegation to the effect that the alleged theft was actually committed during the railway journey undertaken by the complainant, question of holding the railway administration responsible and/or alleging deficiency in service at the instance of the Railways does not arise at all and accordingly dismissed the petition of complainant as mentioned above.

5. The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the learned District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complainant in the manner as discussed above.

Decision with Reasons

6. At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Complainant/Appellant that the learned District Forum having utterly failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs has arrived at a wrong and improper decision which is not at all sustainable under the law. According to the learned Advocate for the Appellant, when it is an admitted position that the complainant did undertake railway journey being acc