AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Shreesha, J
Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") is to the order dated 07.12.2015 in First Appeal No. 15/208, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short, "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (in short "the District Forum") and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as "the Railways"). The District Forum has directed the Railways to pay Rs. 2,17,700/- for loss of costly items and Rs. 20,000/- for loss of cash totalling to Rs. 2,37,700/- with default interest @ 12% p.a. in addition to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
It is the Complainants' case that they boarded Train No. 12229, Goa Sampark Kranti Express on 16.07.2013 departing from Goa to Ratlam to attend a family function. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that Berth No. 1 and 3 in coach A-1 of Second AC category was reserved for them. At about 11.30 p.m. after having dinner at Panvel Railway Station couple slept on the respective berths. It is pleaded that the first Complainant had kept her gold and silver jewellery in a small purse and the second Complainant kept a money purse containing cash of Rs. 20,000/- under her pillow. On the very next day at about 5.30 a.m. they found that the hand purse kept below the pillow was missing and despite all efforts to trace the same they could not do so. The AC attendant of the reserve coach was sleeping at berth No. 5 and AC Conductor and the TC were sleeping in AC first class coach. The Complainants had informed them about the theft and they were advised to lodge the Complaint at the Railway Police Station at Vadodara. The Complainants waited for four hours at the Police Station and sought to lodge a Complaint, but the report as informed by them was not written by the Police authorities and the information was given in Gujarati language. It is pleaded that the value of the loss of item was written as Rs. 2,37,700/-, whereas the total value was Rs. 4,08,128/-.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant contended that though the Complainants were travelling in the reserve coach, it was only because unauthorised personnel were allowed in the compartment that the loss had taken place, which amounts to deficiency of service.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Railways apart from repeating the averments made in the Written Version, vehemently contended that the Complainants did not book their luggage nor made any declaration about the items they carried and hence as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 and Rule 506 (1) and (2) IRCA Coaching Terrif No. 26 Part- 1 Vol-1, the passengers themselves are responsible for the luggage that they are carrying. It was further contended that the Railway authorities has no knowledge of the costly items, which the Complainants were alleged to have been carrying. The theft had occurred at Panvel Railway Station, which is under the Central Railway, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai, whereas the Vadodara Railway Station, where the Complaint has been lodged falls under the Western Railway.
Vide order dated 28.07.2016, this Commission had directed the Petitioner to seek instructions whether any inquiry was conducted by the Railways on the Complaint lodged by the Complainants about the loss of purse. Thereafter, the learned Counsel submitted that there was no specific Complaint lodged by the Respondents in writing before the TTE regarding the theft of the Bag. Having regard to the submission, this Commission vide order dated 05.09.2018, directed the Respondents' Counsel to seek instructions as to whether the Respondent had filed any Complaint in writing with the TTE. The Complainants filed an Affidavit on 06.03.2019 stating that as soon as they became aware of the theft, they complained to the TTE, but at that time the train was crossing Surat and the TTE informed them that he was not competent to register the Complaint of theft and advised them to lodge the Complaint at Vadodara Railway Station, therefore, it was only on the TTE's advise that the Complainants lodged a Complaint at Vadodara Railway Station.
It is seen from the record that both the fora below have given a concurrent finding by allowing the Complaint partly to the extent of payment by the Railways of Rs. 2,17,700/- for loss of costly items and Rs. 20,000/- for loss of cash totalling to Rs. 2,37,700/- with default interest @ 12% p.a. in addition to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Railways that Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 bars the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, is unsustainable in the light of the admitted fact that the hand purse was never booked as cargo in the luggage van and in fact was being carried by the passengers as a personal item. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Railways that the Complainant did not declared the items in the luggage cannot be sustained, as it is an admitted fact that jewellery items and the cash was carried by the Complainants personally with them and not booked in any luggage van. Hence, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is not barred as Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 cannot be relied upon based on the facts and circumstances of this case. Learned Counsel contended that no unauthorised person had entered the cabin. Be that as it may, it is pertinent to mention that an oral Complaint was made to the TTE and no inquiry of any kind was conducted. An FIR was lodged at the Vadodara Railway Station giving the details of the item lost as follows:
"On Dt. 6/07/13, myself and my wife Rajudevi Suryavanshi and younger son, Age 4 years of my younger daughter were went to my knee treatment at CMC Hospital Tamilnadu, Madras, Vellur. And after treatment we went to Goa. And on Dt. 16/07/2013 we booked returned ticket of Train No. 12449, Goa Sampark Kranti Exp in AC/II Seat No. 1, 3 and stat the journey at 12/30 hours and reached Panvel at 11/30 hours. That time our goods were OK and thereafter we go to bed, on Dt. 17/07/13 train was passing from Surat Railway Station at 5/30 am, I was waked and for urine. During the time I was not found sky blue colour ladies purse in which kept a pink colour small purse with gold ornaments and cash amount kept near head of my wife was not found. Therefore I have searched but it was not found. Therefore I realize it is stolen. I have informed to TTE of A.C. coach. But he has informed the train is not stopped at Surat, stopped at Vadodara therefore lodged complaint at there. I have doubt on A.C. coach attendant. The particular of my stolen goods are as under.
A sky blue colour ladies purse in which following gold ornaments were kept pink colour small purse.
Gold Mangalsutra No. - 3, out of it 1 big Mangalsutra of black pearl balls - 20 gm. Second Mangalsutra is of 15 gms totally 45 gms having value of Rs.90,000/-
Two gold bangles of 20 gms of Rs.50,000/-
Gold Ladies ring - 2 of seven gms of Rs.17,500/-
Two gents ringof 10 gms of Rs.20,000/-
Gold Chain 20 gms of Rs.40,000/-
< >
Cash amount of Rs.20,000/- in which ten notes of rupees one thousand and twenty notes of rupees five hundred. A unknown person stole totally Rs.2,37,700/- from seat number 3 of A/1 coach."
Even after formally lodging of the FIR it is relevant to mention that no inquiry was made by the Railways regarding the theft that has occurred in the moving train. Learned Counsel appearing for the Railways argued that though the TTE provided the form for lodging an FIR, the same was not accepted by the Complainant. It is significant to mention that no such averment and pleadings were made in the Written Version. Therefore, for all the reasons, cited above, we find no reasons to interfere with the concurrent finding of both the fora below, keeping in view our limited Revisional jurisdiction as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2 (2010) CPJ 19 (SC). However, the default interest awarded @ 12% p.a. is modified to 6% p.a. while confirming the rest of the order.
This Revision Petition is allowed in part modifying the order of the State Commission only with respect to the default rate of interest, which is reduced from 12% p.a. to 6% p.a. Needless to add, the amount deposited with this Commission by the Petitioner shall stand adjusted from the decretal amount.