Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Union of India and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Daya Shanker Tiwari Basant Kumar Tripathi (LRs) – Respondent
Revision Petition No.1382 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 01/01/2015 in Appeal No.2223/2005 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 26.11.2024

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Nemo

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Railways – Railways will be responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by passengers in the reserved Coach if it is established that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or any of its employees.
(2) Railways – Acts of deficiency in service on the part of Railways are covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, as remedies under this Act are in addition to remedies under other special statutes.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] – Railways Act, 1989 – Section 100 – Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 – Services – Railways – Negligence and Deficiency on part of the Railways – Concurrent findings of fact – Non-interference by National Commission – In the present case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora(s) below against the OP Railways as regards negligence/deficiency in service on the part of Railways – As regards question of liability of Railways with respect to loss/theft of luggage of passengers in a reserved Coach – Also, Railways will be responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by passengers in the reserved Coach if it is established that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or any of its employees – Besides, such acts of deficiency in service on the part of Railways are covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, as remedies under this Act are in addition to remedies under other special statutes – On facts, State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we find no reason to interfere with the same – There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld – Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. [Paras 10 to 16]
Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member—The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 01.01.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 2223/2005 in which order dated 26.03.2003 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Complaint (CC) No. 205/2003 was challenged.

2. While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Parties) were Appellants before the State Commission and Opposite Parties before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 08.09.2015. Parties filed Written Arguments on 16.07.2020 (Petitioner) and on 17.09.2018 (Respondent) respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

The complainant booked ticket for journey from Howrah to Pratapgarh by train No. 3005 Howrah-Amritsar Express on 28.02.2002 and got his reserved seat in coach S-7 Berth No. 39. When the train reached at Patna Junction, he found that his VIP suitcase containing Rs.35,000/- cash, other items costing Rs.7,000/- and the VIP suit case worth Rs.1900/- was found missing. The complainant could not find TTE, attendant and security guard in reserved coach and it was known that all the A/C coach were closed inside and they were sleeping in that coach. The complainant reached at Pratapgarh station by the train and on arrival, the complainant lodged a written report to GRP, Pratapgarh regarding above incident without delay but no action was taken. Hence, filed complaint before the District Forum.

4. Vide Order dated 28.11.2005, in the CC No.205/2003, the District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the OP to pay 75% amount of Rs.32925/- of total amount of Rs.43900/- as compensation and 6% annual interest from the date of complaint i.e. from 26.03.2003 be paid.

5. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 28.11.2005 of District Forum, Petitioners appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 01.012015 in FA No. 2223/2005 has dismissed the Appeal.

6. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 01.01.2015 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i) The complaint is not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs-1 & 2 and their names be deleted in the interest of justice being not necessary parties i.e. Petitioner Nos. 1 &2.

(ii) As per the statement of Complainant, the loss of suitcase came into the knowledge of him at Patna Station. The checking staff of East Central Railway Danapur manages this train from Kayul station to Danapur just after Patna junction, which comes under the control of GM-East Central Railway, Hajipur. Hence, OPs-1 & 2 be deleted from the array of parties in the interest of justice.

(iii) Both the State Commission and District Forum failed to appreciate Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. Admittedly, the suitcase which is alleged to have lost/stolen was not booked with the railways and the complainant was carrying in his charge and it was under his supervision. There is no negligence on the part of Railway’s staff, as being alleged now and since the suitcase was not booked with the Indian Railway’s, so the Indian Railways cannot be held liable for such alleged loss/theft of suitcase. The possibility of taking away of the suitcase by some co-passenger could not be ruled out. According to Rule 506 of the Railways IRCA, Coaching Tariff No. 25, the passenger himself is responsible for the safety of his luggage and the Railway Authorities cannot be held