The main legal point established in the judgment is that the responsibility for the safekeeping of luggage lies with the passenger, and the railways are not liable for any loss unless negligence or misconduct on their part is established.

ORDER :

Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member. - This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenges the order dated 6.2.2018 of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (State Commission) in First Appeal No. 1187 of 2016. vide this order, the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum which allowed the original complaint made by the respondents/ complainants.

2. Brief facts first. Senior citizen respondents/complainants were returning from Gujarat to West Bengal by Shalimar Super fast AC Express (PNR No. 8237844363; train No. 22829; seat/berth Nos. 57, 60) in AC three tier reserved compartment on 5.11.2015. The plaint is that during the said journey, a theft occurred somewhere between Jhasugda and Chakradharpur at about 3.00 a.m., in which they lost Rs. 18,000 cash, some valuable gold ornaments of approx. value Rs. 27,500, a mobile phone of Rs. 3,500 and other goods of an amount of Rs. 1,820. It is stated that there were no security guards in the coach. FIR before the DY/CTI/CKP at the relevant railway station was lodged. Also lodged was a theft complaint before SHO, Jharsugda GRP Police Station through petitioner/OP-4. Petitioners/Opposite Parties 1 and 2 were also informed on 18.1.2016 for necessary action. However, no action was taken by them. Hence, the consumer complaint before the District Forum, praying for a compensation of Rs. 2 lakh for harassment, Rs. 50,820 for stolen articles, litigation costs, all with simple interest till actual payment.

3. The complaint was contested by filing a written reply challenging its maintainability in law and on facts, denying any deficiency in service, and holding the complaint to be vague, frivolous and mala fide. It was held that while the complainants were consumers under the CPA, 1986 insofar as they had purchased a ticket for a journey, they were not consumers in respect of carriage of their valuables with them since such a service had neither been hired nor paid for, under the relevant rules of the Railways. On merit of the complaint, several grounds were argued to establish its lack of bona fide. One, since exact place of occurrence had not been mentioned, it was very difficult for investigation to take place. Two, theft of two bangles and earrings was hard to believe since it was not clear how they could be snatched away without raising of a hue and cry. Three, surprise was expressed at carrying of so much cash with them. It was therefore averred by the petitioners/opposite parties that the theft and the complaint was fabricated. It was further contended that in view of all this, the theft itself did not take place. Still further, it was held that since after filing of FIR, final report had not been received, the consumer complaint should not be proceeded with.

4. The same is allowed on contest with costs and against the OPs who are directed to pay Rs. 20,000 in lump sum to the petitioners as baggage loss and Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation cost." This order was appealed against. Main grounds taken were that the complainant had not booked their alleged valuables with the railways, and that this fact, with the terms and conditions and rules of the railways, particularly Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, was not considered properly. The State Commission however dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 6.2.2018, observing as under:

"In view of this, the findings of the learned District Forum cannot be faltered with in any manner whatsoever ; rather, the same appears to be very much reasonable. Therefore, we refrain from interfering with the same.

The appeal, thus, fails. Hence, ordered.

The appeal stands dismissed on contest against the respondents with a cost of Rs. 10,000 being payable by the appellant railways to the respondent. The impugned order is hereby affirmed."

5. Now, the petitioners/opposite parties have filed the present revision petition before this Commission, seeking the