NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                                                                NEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION  NO.1158     OF  2001

(From the order dated   9.1.2001 in appeal No.98/97

of  the State Commission, Tamil Nadu)

 

Mrs. M. Kanthimathi & Anr.                                                     …        Petitioners

            Vs.

The Government of India, Ministry of Railways,

Represented by the General Manager,

Southern Railway, Chennai.                                                      …        Respondent

 

 

BEFORE:

                        HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,

                                                                          PRESIDENT

                        HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER.

                        MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER.

 

 

Railway - reserved compartment - unauthorised persons entering   the compartment, snatching  gold chain of the  passenger holding reserved ticket - inaction by the Railway Officers - deficiency in service - Section 10 of Railways Act, 1989 - responsibility of Railways as carriers.

 

 

                                                            O R D E R

 

DATED THE  8th        November,  2002.

 

JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT)

 

                        Nobody appears for the respondent though the matter has been called on second time.  Counsel for the respondent  had also not complied with our last order.

                        It is the complainants who are  petitioners before us.  Their complaint was that while travelling in the train some miscreants  unauthorisedly entered the compartment in which complainants being husband and wife were travelling.  Gold chain was snatched from the  first complainant, wife of the second complainant and no assistance whatsoever was provided by the railway authorities.  The compartment in which the couple was travelling, was a reserved compartment.   Complainaning deficiency in service  complaint was filed before the District Forum.   It was allowed.   District Forum after  appreciation of the evidence, directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,840/-  towards value of the jewellery  and Rs.25/- towards sleeping berth charges, and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainants.  Cost of Rs.500/- was also awarded

                        Aggrieved from that order  of the District Forum opposite party-Railways went in appeal  to the State Commission.   Before the State  Commission  it was submitted that Railways could not be responsible   in view of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 which Section we  quote:

“100.  Responsibility as carrier of luggage. – A 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 therefor and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct  on its part or on the part of any of its servants”.

 

                        State Commission   analysed   this Section and was of the view that Section 100 was   in two parts .  First part is relatable to loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage booked  at the railways of which receipt had been issued, and second part is relatable to loss etc of luggage carried on by the passenger  in his charge.   State Commission was of the view that it is   second part of the Railways Act which applies to the  present case.  State Commission did not find  any negligence on the part of the railways.    As regards unauthorised person entering the  compartment State Commission observed that  the persons in the  compartment would be capable  of verifying as to the person who just entered into the compartment was a genuine  passenger  or not.  We think it is too much to expect  from the passengers in the compartment to perform such a duty.  Such a course would be in effect so unreal if not illusory.     Wearing of jewellery on the body of the person would be included in the term luggage  being in  his charge during   travel in the railway. There is  nothing  on record  to controvert  what the complainants alleged.   Firstly entry of unauthorised person was not blocked and   secondly after the crime  no assistance was offered to the complainants by the railway authorities.

                        In our view  State Commission has  not taken pragmatic view of the matter.  We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission and would restore that of the District Forum.   Petitioner would be entitled to cost  which we assess at Rs.2000.

 

                                                                                                                       

                 ……………………………………

(JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA)

                      PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                                       

………………………………………J

(J.K. MEHRA)

                     MEMBER

 

………………………………………

(B.K. TAIMNI)

                       MEMBER