BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 369 OF 2020 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.284/2018 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, ADILABAD Between:

1. The Station Superintendent, South Central Railways, Railway Station, Adilabad.

2. The Division Manager, South Central Railways, Nanded (Maharashtra)

……..Appellants/ Opposite Parties And:

Tarannum Sultana, W/o Abdul Aleem, Aged 26 years, Occ.: Housewife, R/o Kranthinagar, Adilabad.

……..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties : M/s. Vijaya Sagi Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s. S. Roja Ramani QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT) 1. The appeal is filed U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Adilabad, dated 06.02.2020 in CC

284/2018.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that on 15.05.2018, the complainant purchased Journey tickets, bearing No. UPC 12463055 at Kinwat to go to Adilabad in Parli-Adilabad, Train No.57553. When she along with her husband boarded the train by carrying hand bag with her, containing Gold necklace weighing 15.00 gms. 03 gold rings weighing 7.00 gms, gold ear rings (Pool Jumka) weighing 9.850 gms., Gold galsar weighing 10.100gms., silver chain weighing 12 gms., in all worth of Rs.76,286/- and net cash of Rs.6,000/- and after reaching near Talamadugu Railway Station, she checked her hand bag for using mobile phone, found that the said bag zips were opened and jewellery purse was missing, she thought that some offenders committed theft. After reaching the destination i.e. Adilabad, informed the same to the Railway officials. They suggested the complainant to lodge a complaint at Nizamabad. Accordingly, they lodged a complaint with Sub-Inspector of Police, G.R.P. Railway, Nizamabad and the said police registered a case and issued FIR in Cr.No.51/2018 for offence u/s 379 IPC against the unknown accused.

3. On 26.09.2018, the complainant made an application with the opposite parties requesting to take necessary action and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, the opposite parties assured to pursue the matter and do the needful help to the complainant. On several occasions the complainant has approached the opposite parties with regard to settlement of the claim, but there was no proper response from them. Due to these acts of the opposite parties, the complainant and her family sustained loss physically and mentally; hence, the complaint.

4. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Parties are that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that the complainant is put to strict proof of all the averments made in the complaint, except those that are admitted. It is submitted that the Provision of Sec.13 R/w sec.15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the Commission below is not vested with any jurisdiction to adjudicate the subject matter. It is further submitted that the ticket number produced by the said complainant does not substantiate that the complainant had travelled on the said date and by the said train, therefore, she failed to establish that she is a “Consumer” of a railway.

5. As per Sec.100 of Railway Act, 1989, “the 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 case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless, it is also proved that the loss, destruction etc., was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servant”.

6. In the present case, neither the consignment is delivered in the custody of the Railway Administration, nor its value is declared, there