M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 698/2020

1. General Manager Central Rail Divisional Office Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal Mumbai (Maharashtra) 2. General Manager Western Central Railway Divisional Office Jabalpur (M.P.)

3. Station Terminal Indian Railway Railway Station Damoh (M.P.) ... Appellants VERSUS.

Vijay Jain, Advocate S/o Late Lalchand Jain Age 64 years R/o Naya Bazar No.2, Damoh District Damoh (M.P.) ... Respondent BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHIR DEEPESH SHUKLA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS.

NONE FOR RESPONDENT.

O R D E R

( 14.08.2025 )

Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.

This appeal by the appellant/opposite parties- Railways, assails the order dated 3.7.2020, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Damoh (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 65/2019, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed respondent/complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that on 4.9.2018, the complainant, along with his wife, was travelling from Mumbai to Damoh, in B-3 coach of 11071 Kamayani Express. According to complainant in his trolley bag, he was carrying Rs.7,000/- in cash, silver and pearl ornaments, spectacles worth Rs.7,000/- etc. and he chained the bag beneath the central table of the reserved berth. It is alleged that during journey there was no arrangement for security and there were no G.R.P or R.P.F personnel in the coach. There were unauthorized persons in the coach. When the complainant suddenly woke up he found that his trolley bag is missing. He immediately reported the matter to the TTI and lodged a complaint with the CRP Station, Vidisha, where complaint No. 155/2018 was registered on 8.9.2018. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellants/Railways, the complainant approached the District Commission by filing the said complaint, seeking relief.

3. Opposite parties/Railways resisted the complaint and in their reply before the District Commission raised a preliminary objection that under Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, railway administration is not liable for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration, or non-delivery of luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and issued a receipt, or in the case of passenger-carried luggage, unless negligence or misconduct by the railway or its servants is proven. Since the complaint has neither booked nor informed about the valuables he was carrying with him, the Railway is not liable for the loss. The complainant came to know about the incident of theft at Ganjbasoda, which comes under the jurisdiction of West Central Railway, Bhopal and the complainant has not impleaded it as a party to the complaint, therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non- joinder of parties. In the FIR lodged by the complainant it has not been mentioned that he has chained the trolley bag beneath the central table. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Railways and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence filed by the parties, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Railways to pay cost of the article, Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, within two months from the date of the order. Rs.2000/- for deficiency in service and mental agony with Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses, has also been awarded.

Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the Railways argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the settled principle of law. It is further argued that the learned District Commission has not considered the law laid down by the Apex Court, while passing the impugned order. He has further argued that there is no evidence in respect to travelling of unauthorized person in the coach. Further submission is that the compl