ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member—This Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur(‘State Commission’) order dated 08.11.2016 in FA Nos. 424 and 439 of 2015, wherein the FA No. 439/2015 filed by the Complainant was dismissed and FA No.424 filed by UOI was allowed and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer (“District Forum”) order in CC No. 52/2013 dated 17.03.2015 was set aside.

2. As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of one day in filing the present Revision Petition. In view of the facts and circumstances, the delay is condoned.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as stated in the original Complaint before District Forum. Amit Sharma is referred to as Complainant (Petitioner herein) and Union of India is referred to as the Opposite Party (OP) No.1 (Respondent No.1) and Divisional Rail Manager is denoted as OP-2 (Respondent No.2) respectively.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he along with his family travelled by Pooja Express from Delhi to Ajmer in AC Coach No. B-2, with reserved berths No. 39 and 41 to 46 on 13.11.2011. His sister, Preeti Tripathi, who resides in Udaipur was also accompanying them. She was scheduled to leave for Udaipur the same day, three hours after their arrival in Ajmer, and was to return a week later for a wedding ceremony.

For safety during travel, Preeti handed over a small purse containing her ornaments to her mother, Smt. Madhu Sharma, who kept it in her larger handbag. Upon de-boarding the train at Ajmer Station, Smt. Madhu Sharma opened her handbag to pay the coolie and discovered that the small purse containing the ornaments was missing. The Complainant and his family immediately re-boarded the AC coach to search for the purse but could not locate it. He reported the incident to the Govt Railway Police (GRP) Thana at Ajmer. An officer accompanied the Complainant back to the coach for another search, but the purse remained untraceable. The Complainant filed a written report, but the FIR was registered on 14.11.2011, detailing the stolen gold ornaments. Despite consistent follow-up, no clue about the theft emerged, and the Final Report (FR) was submitted by the police and accepted by the court. The Complainant alleged that the theft occurred due to lack of adequate security arrangements in the reserved coach, constituting a deficiency of service on the part of the Railways. Consequently, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation for the loss.

5. In their written version before the District Forum, Ops admitted to the facts of the complainant travelling as per schedule stated and denied the allegations of any deficiency in service. They asserted that no unauthorized person was present in the coach, and the complainant must prove his claims with evidence. OPs averred that the incident did not occur during the journey but while the passengers were deboarding the train at Ajmer station. At that point, coolies, auto-rickshaw drivers, and other personnel often board the train to assist passengers, making it unclear as to who was responsible. OPs also raised the possibility that the theft occurring in Delhi before the journey began. The complainant did not take any immediate action in Delhi and instead filed a complaint at Ajmer. The OPs noted a discrepancy in the complaint, highlighting that while the FIR mentioned Preeti handing over the purse to her mother, this detail was absent in the initial report. The OPs further averred that since the stolen property was not booked under Section 11 of the Railway Act, no liability arises on their part, and they requested dismissal of the complaint.

6. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 17.03.2015, allowed the complaint with the following order:

“Order

17. (1) The Applicant shall be entitled to receive as compensatio