M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.597 OF 2020 (Arising out of order dated 16.06.2020 passed in Case.No. 343/2019 by District Commission, Gwalior)

SMT.GEETANJALI RITESH MAINI, PRESENT ADDRESS – 308 B, LAWMENSAN BUILDING, DUBAI (UAE)

PERMANENT ADDRESS - BY MR.C.L. TALREJA, 20 DISKINSON ROAD, COMMERCIAL STREET, NEAR TIWARI SWEET SHOP, BANGLORE CITY, KARNATAKA 560042. … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL RAILWAY, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE OF GENERAL MANAGER, NEW DELHI.

2. UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL RAILWAY, THROUGH SENIOR MANAGER (COMMERCIAL)

COMMERCIAL OFFICE, NEW DELHI.

3. UNION OF INDIA, NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE OF GENERAL MANAGER, ALLAHABAD.

4. UNION OF INDIA, NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, THROUGH SENIOR MANAGER (COMMERCIAL), COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ALLAHABAD.

5. UNION OF INDIA, NORTH CETRAL RAILWAY, THROUGH STATION MANAGER, RAILWAY STATION, GWALIOR. .… RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE DR.SRIKANT PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Ayush Mishra, appears for Shri Sandeep Guru, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Sandeep Savita, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R (Passed on .08.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the complainant / appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) directed against the order dated 16.06.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.343/2019, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant alongwith her husband and son was travelling in Dakshin Express Train’s II AC coach no.A-1 on berth nos.43, 44 and 46. She submitted that she was carrying mobile phone, passport, ATM card, PAN card, some cash and jewelry in a ladies purse. She alleged that on 16.07.2018 when the train reached Lalitpur Station at about 8 a.m. she observed that her handbag and purse were missing. She lodged police complaint in this regard and alleged deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties – Railways and filed complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 remained absent despite service of notice before the District Commission.

4. Opposite parties nos.3 to 5 in their reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant gave no information to the Railways regarding the valuables which were carried by her. It is also submitted that there was no unauthorized entry in the coach in which the complainant was travelling. It is also submitted that the Chief Ticket Inspector cooperated and helped the complainant regarding searching of the stolen bags and also helped them lodge police complaint. It is also submitted that as per the Section 100 of the Railways Act, the complainant was required to book her luggage in order to affix liability on the Railways but the same was not done.

Therefore, there is no deficiency on part of the Railways.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the District Commission has erred in holding that the complainant has not been able to prove that there was unauthorized entry in the coach in which she was travelling. It is clear deficiency in service on part of the Railways that the bag which was kept with the complainant got stolen from a reserved compartment.

Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He referred to judgments of this Commission in First appeal no.322/2022, North Central Railways vs. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma and First appeal no.155/2024, Akhilesh Kumar Sharma vs. North Central Railways, decided on 21.02.2025 to support his arguments.

7. Learned counsel for the Railways argued that there is no mention in the FIR regarding unauthorized entry in the complainant’s coach. Also the complainant is not c