STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR First Appeal No. A/17/321 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/06/2017 in. Complaint Case No. CC/15/98 of District Forum, Gondia.)

1. The General Branch Manager, Gondia, South East Central Railway, Railway Station, Gondia.

2. The Chief Divisional Railway Manager, Nagpur, South East Central Railway, Office South East Central Railway, Tah. and Distt. Nagpur.

3. The General Manager, South East Central Railway Board, South East Central Railway Office, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur, Chattisgarh.

4. The Divisional Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway Station, Raipur. ...........Appellant (s)

Versus Smt. Ayushi Umesh Bihvgade, R/o. Ward No. 5, Smruti Sadan, Tahsil- Katangi, District Balaghat. .

………. Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI S. KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER PRESENT: Adv. Mendhiratta for the appellant Respondent already proceeded exparte.

Dated : 29 April, 2025 Final Order/Judgment (Delivered on 29/04/2025)

PER MS. S.D. WANDHARE , HON’BLE MEMBER.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the original opposite parties, General Branch Manager, Gondia, South-East Railway Gondia and others, being aggrieved by the order passed on 30/06/2017 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/15/98 (for short as “impugned order”) by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gondia (for short as “learned District Forum”), vide Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The parties of the appeal are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature as complainant and opposite parties respectively for better appreciation.

2. The facts that emerge from the present appeal is that the complainant along with family members travelled from Gondia to Anuppur by Gondia-Barouni Express Train No.15232 on 14/05/2015 with a reserved Ticket having PNR No.6340794341 for Sleeper Coach S-5, Berth Seat No.7, 2, 6 and 5. During their journey, on 15/05/2015 at about 01.30 AM while the Train running from Bhatapara station, one entered unknown person in their Coach had picked the purse of the complainant from her while it was laid below her head and fled away therefrom. The complainant had immediately told the incident of theft to her parents and husband and thus, they made searched but in vain. They found no police in the Coach for reporting the matter of theft. So, they reported the said incident about stolen of her two golden chain, three golden rings, mangalsutra, ATM card, Samsung and Max make mobile and cash of Rs.25.000/- total worth of Rs.2,00,000/- to next railway station when the train stopped. Accordingly, the incident is recorded at Raipur Railway Police Station bearing Crime No.20/5 dated 15/05/2015 in respect to offence of Section 380 of the IPC. The complainant claimed to suffer mental and physical pain for the incident that occurred due to the lack of security from the Railways. So, the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the railways administration and claimed a loss amount of Rs2,00,000/- against stolen golden and other articles along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% PA, compensation and cost of proceeding from the O.Ps.

3. The opposite parties resisted the claim before the learned District Forum and while they admitted the complainant had traveled by Gondia-Barouni Express Train No.15232, they disputed the claim of theft and the loss of alleged cash, gold jewelry and other articles. They contended that no documentary evidence proving that the complainant had carried such valuables during the journey. Further, they claimed that under Section 100 of the Railway Act, passengers carrying high-value goods were required to declare and book them separately, and failure to do so made them solely responsible for any loss. They asserted that the complainant had not complied with this requirement and, therefore, she could not hold them liable for the alleged loss. Additionally, they objected to the jurisdiction of the C