NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member and Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Appellants
Versus
J.S. KUNWAR - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 4007 of 2009 against Order dated 9.9.2009 in F. Appeal No. 175 of 2008 of State Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun
Decided on : 15-12-2009
DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE - RAILWAY LIABILITY - The court held that there was a clear deficiency of service on the part of the railway department in allowing unauthorized persons to enter the reserved compartment and steal the complainant's attache. The court relied on the Railways Act, 1989 and emphasized the responsibility of the railway administration to prevent unauthorized entry into reserved compartments and ensure the safety of passengers' property.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's attache was stolen from a reserved train compartment, and the railway department denied registering an FIR on the day of travel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a clear deficiency of service on the part of the railway department in allowing unauthorized persons to enter the reserved compartment and steal the complainant's attache. The court relied on previous decisions emphasizing the responsibility of the railway administration to prevent unauthorized entry into reserved compartments.
Issues: The issues revolved around the responsibility of the railway department in preventing theft and the complainant's actions in reporting the theft.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the responsibility of the railway administration to prevent unauthorized entry into reserved compartments and ensure the safety of passengers' property, as per the Railways Act, 1989.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of the State Commission, which awarded a nominal amount to the complainant.
ORDER
Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member - Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner on admission.
2. Brief facts of the case are:
The complainant Mr. J.S. Kunwar had reservation in Coach No. S-5 Seat No. 16 in train No. 3009 (Howrah-Dehradun) from Lucknow to Haridwar on 18.7.2002. He occupied the said seat. He was carrying a attache with important papers, etc. worth Rs. 13,090. It is complained that at the time of running of the train unauthorized persons entered the coach and stole his attache and also the attache of Smt. Vinod Anial. This information was immediately given to the Train Escort but he denied to register FIR on 18.7.2002 on the day of travel. On 19.7.2002 after reaching Dehradun in the morning he registered FIR at the P.S. G.R.P., Dehradun. The petitioners contended that in the District Forum that there was no authorized person or passenger without reservation in the coach and that they had no knowledge about the report to the police. It is being submitted that as per Section 100 of Railways Act, 1989, the railway department is not responsible for the goods not booked with them. They also submitted that no written information was given to the T.T. by the complainant. The District Forum after considering the evidence, allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to pay Rs. 7,000 along with interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs. 1,000 as litigation cost. Petitioner's filed appeal in the State Commission which was dismissed by the order dated 9.9.2009. It was held by both the Fora below that unauthorized persons had entered the coach and stole the attache of the complainant. In this revision petition, it is submitted by the learned Counsel of the petitioner Mr. S.A. Sattar that the complainant did not raise alarm and chase the thief when his attache was being stolen. If he was aware of the theft then he should not have kept quiet and hence it must have been stolen during the night while the complainant was sleeping carelessly leaving aside his luggage without locking the suitcase with key and chain provided under each seat. It is submitted that prudent man is supposed to take care of his own luggage like putting the suitcase under chain and lock.
3. In the present case, admittedly the attache was lost in a reserved compartment. Complainant made enough effort with the Train Escort and the T.T. to register FIR and he was supposed to file it on 18.7.2002. He filed the same on 19.7.2002 after reaching Dehradun at P.S. G.R.P., Dehradun. Except mere averment and the vague allegations that the attache must have been stolen in middle of the night and the complainant is at fault by not putting his luggage under lock and key which has been provided with each seat. Petitioners are unable to substantiate their pleas against the complainant. We rely on the decision rendered by this Commission in Union of India and Ors. v. Sanjiv Dilsukhraj Dave and Anr., 2003 CTJ 196 (CP) (NCDRC)
"A major responsibility cast on the TTE in addition to examining the tickets is that of ensuring that no intruders enter the reserved compartments..............This is certainly a gross dereliction of duty which resulted in deficiency in service to the respondents.
The price difference between the unreserved ticket and a reserved ticket is quite high and the travelling public who buy a reserved ticket would expect that they can enjoy the train journey with a certain minimum amount of security and safety.
................ One has to presume that passenger would take reasonable care of his luggage. But, he cannot be expected to take measures against intruders getting easily into reserved compartments and running away with goods, when the railway administration is charged with the responsibility to prevent such unauthorized entry. We have entered the 21st century and we cannot carry on our daily life in the same age old fashion with bearing brunt of indifferent service provided by public authorities like Railways. People expect in the 21st century a modicum of eff
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.