IMPORTANT POINT
There is no justification for door of coach to be left open while train is running between two stations.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 23.08.2017 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Bikaner, (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 572 of 2017.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioners/ opposite parties are that on 08.02.2011, the respondent/ complainant was going from Delhi Sarai Rohilla to Ganganagar in Coach no. A 1, seat no. 9 of AC 2 tier train run by the petitioners. The cost of the train ticket was Rs.498/-. The said train left at 10.50 p m in the night and reached Ganganagar in the morning. In the night the respondent was sleeping on the lower berth she had wrapped her hand bag in her hand and kept the same on her chest covered with the quilt. Some unknown person had tried to snatch the purse wrapped in her hand forcibly. The respondent tried to resist/ stop the unknown person from pulling the purse and she was dragged up to the door. Due to this tussle the respondent suffered injury to the middle finger of her right hand. The chain purse then broke and the said unknown person succeeded in snatching her purse. The respondent made a hue and cry. In the meanwhile, the person who had snatched the purse got down from the train as the train was running at a very slow speed. The respondent lost Rs.6,000/- in cash, two pairs of diamond Jhumka worth Rs.2,00,000/-, a ruby necklace of Rs.7,000/- and one necklace of Rs.17,000/- were also stolen. Articles of another passenger Kavita Sethi were also stolen. Report of theft was given to the coach attendant immediately but he did not take any action. The gate of the air-conditioned coach was open. The coach attendant has committed negligence in his duty due to which the said unknown person entered into the reserved coach and the incident of theft occurred. When the train reached at Sangrur platform, she got registered an FIR of the said incident at about 05.00 am in the morning of 09.02.2011. No action had been taken so far. Later on her husband told that some of her documents had been found safe, her jewellery etc., has not been found.

3. The petitioners/ opposite parties contested the complaint and stated that the case can be tried only in a Railway Tribunal. The District Forum had no jurisdiction to hear the case. Further, the area in which the incident had taken place falls in the State of Haryana. The petitioners had admitted that the complainant was travelling in the said train and they further stated that the coach assistant had not committed any negligence and had complied with his duties. It has also been stated that no complaint was made at the spot. Hence, the petitioners prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) vide its order dated 21.06.2017 while allowing the complaint observed as under:

“6. On the basis of the material available on the file, this is the admitted position that on 08.02.2011 the complainant was travelling on a reserved seat in Coach no. A 1 of Air conditioned train no. 12455 for coming to Sriganganagar from Delhi Sarai Rohilla. The parties have also not any dispute on this fact that during the journey, on theft of goods of complainant, the complainant has got registered an FIR with GRP Police Station Sangrur and till date the police has not recovered all the stolen of the complainant and has been returned to her. The parties has also no dispute on this fact that the goods of the complainant had been stolen by some unknown person during the night from air conditioned Coach no. A 1, during the mid-night. The non-applicant has drawn the attention of the Forum to Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989 and has argued that the goods which has been stated by the complainant stolen, the same was in her custody and possession and due to not having any negligence or careless of non-applicant Railway Department, no deficiency of service or liability of the non-applic