NORTHERN RAILWAY vs LT.COL.N.C.MITRA

LT. Col. N.C. Mitra, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, deposited his baggage comprising three VIP suitcases and one air-bag in the Cloak Room at New Delhi Railway Station on 28.9.92 for which he was issued four receipts. On the following day when the complainant went to collect the baggage, one VIP suit-case bearing receipt No. 887436 was found missing. The matter was reported to the Station Supdt., New Delhi Railway Station and First Information Report was lodged with the GRP Police Station. Alongwith the FIR a list of articles, cash jewellery etc. which had been placed in the suit-case totaling Rs. 18,875/- was given. The complainant addressed a letter to the Chief Commercial Supdt., Northern Railway on 23.10.92 and on receiving advice from him he also lodged a claim with the Chief Claim Officer on 16.2.93. The complainant failed to get any relief and accordingly approached the District Forum-II claiming the value of the goods lost besides compensation.

IN the reply, the opposite party did not dispute the fact that the VIP suit-case had been deposited by the complainant and the same was found missing. It was, however, pleaded that the opposite party was not liable to make any payment on account of compensation. The OP further stated that the officer concerned named one Chander Prakash has been placed under suspension and a criminal case got registered against him which was pending. Affidavits were filed on both sides. On a consideration of the matter it was held to be case of deficiency in service and the OP was directed to pay rupees 18,875/-as the value of the goods lost besides Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. It was also directed that persons responsible for loss could be easily identified and that the amount awarded in the present case be recovered from them. Aggrieved by the order, the OP has preferred this appeal. We have heard Mr. Jaswant Singh Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.M. Takia, Advocate for the respondent.

Mr. Jaswant Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has made the following points : (i) While in the FIR the value of the goods was stated to be Rs. 18,875/-, in the letter written by the complainant on 5.1.83 to the Chairman, the value was stated to be Rs. 20,000/-. The aforesaid discrepancy was enough to put the District Forum on guard while assessing the real loss suffered by the complainant. This aspect had not received due attention. (ii) Apart from small amount of cash and certain items of jewelry the contents of the suit-case comprised clothes. The value of the clothes appear to have been stated at the time when they were acquired. In other words, the depreciated value thereof had not been stated. In fact the value of clothes which had been used greatly depreciated. (iii) The status of the clothes was not setout in the report. (iv) Admittedly, the appellant had no knowledge about the contents of the suit-case nor would such value be possibly known to the appellant. (v) The appellant had taken whatever action was possible namely to suspend the official and register a criminal case against him. In other words it was not possible for the opposite party to trace out the VIP suit-case. (vi) The compensation awarded was excessive and disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case.

MR. Takia, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the suit-case was lost on 29.9.92. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Chief Commercial Supdt. and under advice from him with the Chief Claims Officer. No relief was provided and the complainant was, therefore, obliged to approach the District Forum, MR. Takia contended that in the facts and circumstances the respondent had undergone long period of mental agony and deprived of use of the goods, and the amount awarded by way of compensation was just and reasonable and called for no interference. We have carefully considered the respective contentions. It cannot be disputed that the opposite party, in the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, did not know the contents of the suit-case or the value thereof. It is also to be borne in mind that the OP is not in a position to verify about the contents and the value thereof. At the same time it is admitted that the complainant furnished necessary details of the various items contained in the lost suit-case without any loss of time. The learned D.F. appears to have accepted the value declared by the complainant without allowing depreciation thereon on account of use in order to determine the value at the time of loss. We are also of the view that the amount of compensation awarded is on the high side. We accordingly, partly allow the appeal and reduce the amount on account of value of the goods including the suit-case to Rs. 15,000/- and the amount of compensation to Rs. 5,000/-. We make it clear that it will be open to the appellant to take appropriate action including action for the recovery of the amount from the official (s) concerned according to law. The appeal stands disposed of in these terms. A copy of this order be conveyed to both the parties as well as D.F.II. Appeal partly allowed.