IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Railway Administration bears responsibility under Railways Act as well as Consumer Protection Act to ensure safety of passengers and their belongings during transit.
(2) When theft occurs on a running train, cause of action is deemed continuous between originating and destination stations – Cause of action is not confined to place where theft occurred rather it extends throughout entire journey.

JUDGMENT

The present Appeal (First Appeal) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent as detailed above, against the order dated 06.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, (District South-I) (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Complaint (CC) No.502/2008, inter-alia praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.

2. While the Appellant was Opposite Party before the District Commission and the Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission.

3. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he had booked tickets on 23.07.08 for train No.2557 SaptKranti Express berth Nos.17 and 20 in coach No.S-11. At around 22.30 p.m. when they reached at Lucknow station two GRPF staff who were not in uniform came in the coach and started checking the luggage of the passengers and misbehaving with the passengers and when the Complainant protested against it they started abusing him and beat him. At that time, TT was also present but he did not stop them. When the GRPF staff left he found that his wife’s purse containing some cash, jewellery, mobile phone, ATM card and credit card of value of Rs.18,000/- was missing. He searched all around but could not find anything. No railway official including TT Arvind Kumar paid any heed to his complaint. After reaching to New Delhi Railway Station, he lodged complaint with GRPF, New Delhi. He also registered FIR bearing No.084 dated 24.07.08 U/s 379 IPC with P.S. New Delhi Railway Station. He and his wife suffered so much mental harassment and financial loss due to the negligence on the part of the staff of OP. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complaint has been filed with the following relief:-

i. Direct the OP to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards financial, mental and physical harassment suffered by the Complainant due to the illegal acts on the part of the officials of the OP.

ii. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.”

4. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 06.08.2016, whereby it held as under:

“It is not in dispute that Complainant alongwith his wife had booked tickets on 23.07.08 for train No.2557 Sapt Kranti Express berth No.17 and 20 in coach No.S-11 from Bettiah to New Delhi. When the train reached at the Lucknow Station two GRPF personnel came inside the compartment and checked the baggages of the passengers including the Complainant in the presence of TT Arvind Kumar and they went away and he found that his wife’s purse containing some cash, jewellery, mobile phone, ATM card and credit card of Rs.18,000/- was missing. He had informed the T.T. who was present in the compartment. He pulled the chain twice but the matter was not resolved. On reaching New Delhi Railway Station he lodged a complaint with GRPF New Delhi (we mark the document as Annexure-A for the purpose of identification).

In view of the above, it transpires that the articles were lying in Complainant’s wife’s purse and there was no need to get it booked with the Railway department as the purse is always carried by the lady passenger herself. The OP has placed reliance on section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989 which reads as under:—

“100. Responsibility as carrier of luggage.—A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefore and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants.”

We are unable to locate substance in these arguments. The Complainant h