IMPORTANT POINT
Theft - The complainant has to prove any negligence on part of the Railway Officials in performance of their duty. It is also held that the complainant ought to have taken sufficient safeguard to protect his suitcase from any possible theft.

ORDER

Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member—This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘Railways’) is directed against the order dated 20.01.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ujjain (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.77/2013 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’).

2. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the respondent along with his wife were travelling in ‘Dehradun Express’ on 16.12.2013 from Nagda to Hazrat Nizamuddin. The respondent was allotted berth no.7 & 8 in S-4 coach. It is alleged that during journey near Palwal Station, an unknown person stole the bag of respondent’s wife which was kept under the seat. It is also alleged that there was no arrangement for safety of the passengers and security guard was also not available in the said coach. It is alleged that various jewelry items were contained in the bag/purse which was stolen and therefore alleging deficiency in service against the Railways, the respondent approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The opposite parties/Railways resisted the complaint on the ground that Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 states that the Railways are not responsible if the luggage carried by the passengers is not booked with them. The Railways also submitted that there is discrepancy in respondent’s pleadings in the complaint case filed by him with that of FIR since the respondent in his pleadings has stated that bag/purse was kept under the seat and was stolen but in the FIR it is stated that the bag/purse, which was kept under the head of respondent’s wife was stolen. It is submitted that there has been no negligence or deficiency in service on part of the Railways and therefore the complaint be dismissed.

4. The District Commission allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties-Railways jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,41,050/- to the respondent within two months, failing which the aforesaid amount is directed to be paid with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 25.08.2013, till payment. Hence this appeal.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties/Railways argued that the District Commission has erroneously passed the impugned order when the respondent had failed to prove negligence or deficiency in service on part of the Railway Authorities. There are no specific allegations regarding unauthorized entry in the coach, by the respondent. The District Commission has also ignored that there is disparity and misrepresentation in the complaint filed by him before the District Commission and the FIR, which is available on record. Also, the bills on the basis of which the District Commission has decided the quantum are duplicate as there is no mention of any Tin number etc. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7116/2017 (Station Superintendent & Anr Vs Suender Bhola) decided on June 15, 2023, decision of National Commission in Zonal Manager/General Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.) & Anr Vs Purushottam Mohta I (2019) CPJ 335 (NC) and a decision of this Commission in Appeal Nos. 1192/2008 & 2172/2008 (Union of India Vs Smt. Kanta Bhadoria & Smt. Kanta Bhadoria Vs Union of India) decided on 03.01.2020 to support his arguments.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that during journey, an unknown person stole the purse of respondent’s wife which was kept under the seat. He along with other passengers tried to catch him but he ran away. There were no arrangements for safety and security in the reserved coach. Therefore the Railway authorities are responsible for the loss caused to him as the bag contained precious jewelry items. The District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint. He argued that the appeal is without any merit deserves to be dismissed.

8. The appellants-Railways in their reply