IMPORTANT POINT
Railway will be responsible for theft or loss of luggage carried by passengers in reserved Coach if it is established that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on part of Railway or any of its employees.

ORDER

Dr. Sadhna Shanker. Member—This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) in challenge to the order dated 06.06.2024 in First Appeal No.293 of 2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (in short, the ‘State Commission’) arising out of an order dated 13.10.2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in consumer complaint No.1251 of 2018.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 03.05.2018 the complainant was travelling from Puri to Durg with her two minor sons, in a reserved air condition sleeper class in train No.18425, operated from Zone Sambalpur (Orissa) of East Coast Railway. As it was night, the complainant and her children were resting in their reserved seats after having food etc. It is alleged that when she woke up at 3.50 a.m. she found that her handbag kept with her was stolen by an unknown thief near Sambalpur. The complainant informed the coach attendant and the TTE accompanying her and lodged a report with GRP Titlagarh, respondent No.3. It is alleged that the said handbag contained four tolas of gold necklace, three gold rings (five grams each), gold bangles, Rs.20,000/0- (rupees twenty thousand) cash and SBI AMT card, mobile phone of Redmi Company, Voter ID card and silver anklets and toe rings worth Rs.3,00,000/- (three lack) in total. It is further alleged that the complainant contacted the respondents several times but the problem was not resolved.

3. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission, seeking compensation of Rs.3 lakh with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and Rs.1 lakh and advocate’s fee.

4. The respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘railway’) contested the complaint by filing written statement stating that the railway is responsible for taking the passenger safely to the destination and if the passenger travels with expensive luggage, then he travels at his own risk and the railway is not responsible for any theft or loss. It was further stated that the complainant had neither booked in the parcel nor booking receipt was obtained from the booking officer. Therefore, the railways department is not responsible for theft of the luggage or any other incident. As per Rule 1101 of Indian Railway Commercial Manual Chapter xi booking of certain Valuable articles as mentioned in para 1 of schedule II of the railway (extent of monetary liability and prescription of percentage charge) rules, 1990 if a passenger is travelling with valuable luggage, then it is necessary to declare it. Otherwise, as per Section 103(2) of the Railway Act and Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989, if the booking (reservation) of any goods is not done by the passenger along with the ticket, then the Railway cannot be held responsible or liable for the theft or destruction of such goods at that time. It was further stated that besides this, the railway warns the passengers by putting up advertisements at various places that the passengers should protect their luggage themselves and the passengers are instructed to take proper precautions during the journey. It was further stated that there is no information about what luggage the applicant was carrying with her while travelling was given to respondents.

It was further stated that the District Commission did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case for compensation of any loss suffered during railways journey under section 13-1 (a) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It is further stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. The District Forum vide its order on 13.10.2023 partly allowed the complaint against respondent No.1 and directed it to pay Rs.3 lakh with interest at the rate of 6% per annum simple interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards m