BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD (ADDITIONAL BENCH)

FA. No. 454/2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC. No. 418/2017 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, HYDERABAD Between :

1.The Government Railways, Ministry of Railways, South Central Railways, Represented by its General Manager, Railnilayam, Sencunderabad.

…..Appellant/Opposite party No.1 And

1.Sabastian Leo Raj, S/o. N.Irudayaraj, Age 42 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Flat No.403, Hill No.6-7, Kalanilayam, Behind Sri Venkateswara Temple, Chandanagar, Hyderabad.

…Respondent/Complainant

2.The Additional Director General of Police, Railways, South Central Railways, Secunderabad-500025.

3.The Inspector of police, Railway Police Station, Coimbatore Junction, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu State-641018.

…Respondents/Opposite party No.2 & 3 (R2 and R3 are not necessary parties.)

Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Vijay Sagi Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. A.Naveen Kumar-R1 QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER), &

Hon’ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member (N-J)

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR *****

ORDER : (HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER)

1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Opposite party

1, U/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this State Commission to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order of the District Forum-II, Hyderabad passed in CC. No. 418/2017 dt.22.04.2019 and consequently to dismiss the complaint of the complainant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The appellant herein was opposite party No. 1. The first respondent in this appeal was the complainant and the second and third respondent in this appeal were opposite parties 2 and

3.

For the sake of clarity at the very outset it is to be mentioned here that though initially the complainant filed the complaint CC.No.418/2017 against opposite parties 1 to 3, subsequently the complainant vide a memo dt.23.02.2018 not pressed the claim against opposite parties 2 and 3 as such at the threshold itself the District Forum dismissed the claim against opposite parties 2 and 3 basing on the said memo.

3. The brief facts of complaint are as follows:-

The complainant is working in M/s. VAG Valves Ltd., Hyderabad as a Manager-Supply Chain Management, vide ID. No. 214817. He received an invitation from his cousin to attend to his marriage on 27.08.2017 at their native place in Coimbatore. On 22.06.2017 the complainant booked two tickets vide PNR No.4233210022, by using Paytm order ID:3419743399 for him and his wife Smt. S.Sonia Elizabeth to travel in Sabari Express No.17230 from Hyderabad to Coimbatore junction on 25.08.2017. He was allotted berth No.38 in coach No.S6 and his wife was allotted berth No.40 in the same coach. He paid a sum of Rs.1010/- towards the cost of two tickets which were confirmed. On 25.08.2017 the complainant and his wife along with their 14 months baby daughter boarded the Sabari Express at Nampally Railway Station, Hyderabad by carrying 4 bags i.e. 2 travel bags, one Hand bag and one big shopper. Out of two travel bags the missed travel bag color is Red and Black and the same contains the dress of baby and a mobile phone Model Honor 4C SIM.No.8870588725/9652019955-IMEI No.866778025827696 and its cost is Rs.10,000/-. The other travel bag contained Laptop (Fujitsu/Life Book E-Series) worth of Rs.80,000/- and Gold Jewellery i.e. Harram of 36 grams, Bangles of 12 grams , Bracelet of 4 grams, Two rings of 2 grams and 4 grams, Necklace of 20 grams, hangings of 4 grams, Chain of 8 grams. Silver Anklet worth of Rs.2,000/- and silver hip chain worth of Rs.2,000/-. The purpose of their travel to Coimbatore was purely to attend to the marriage of their close relative as such they carried their entire jewelry so as to wear the same in the wedding function as per the local tradition.

The complainant further submits that they were no Guards in coach No.S6 up to Jolarpet Station and doors of