R.RAMASWAMY vs Union of India

THE complainants appeal.

THEIR case is that while they were travelling in the early hours from Bombay to Madras they found that between Pune and Daund their luggage containing their belongings have disappeared. It is further alleged that the compartment in which they were travelling did not have proper locking facilities and that there was no conductor or any other person from the Railways to report the matter immediately. They have however filed a complaint to the Station Master, Daund Station and also a criminal complaint in Sholapur Railway Police Station. On the basis of these allegations they have claimed the following amount: (1) Rs. 30,256/- to the complainants towards the loss of belongings and baggages of all the three complainants; (2) Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the deficient service provided to all the three complainants; (3) Rs. 5,000/- to the complainants as compensation for the inconvenience, physical pain, restlessness and sufferings undergone by all the three complainants; (4) Rs. 5,000/- to the complainants as compensation for the mental agony, fear and anxiety suffered by all the three complainants; and (5) Rs. 5,000/- towards unnecessary expenditure that the complainants were subjected to.

Before the District Forum, the respondents have raised the objection of jurisdiction stating that the Pondicherry Court did not have the competence to deal with the matter which happened between Pune and Daund.

The District Forum over-ruled the objection, went into the merits of the case and after hearing the parties held that there was no ground for refund of the value of the goods lost, but held that the opposite parties shall return to the complainants Rs. 2,143/- which represent the cost of the tickets plus Rs. 3,000/- as compensation.

THERE is no appeal by the opposite parties. The grievance of the complainants in this appeal is about the refusal of the District Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay the cost of the luggage lost and the inadequacy of the amount of compensation. There was no person to represent the respondents. However, they have filed a counter which was perused.

THE allegation to the effect that there was negligence on the part of the Railways in not providing the compartment with adequate locking facilities is not controverted. But as per the Consumer Protection Act there cannot be any award specifically for the loss of the goods. What is provided is only compensation which would be global and would encompass all sorts of loss and injury suffered by the customer including the loss of goods. THErefore, the only question to be decided is whether the compensation awarded by the District Forum is adequate. THEre were three passengers. THE District For am has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,143/- representing the cost of three tickets plus Rs. 3,000/- The case of the complainants is that they have lost their valuables to the tune of Rs. 30,256./-. In this connection they have filed an affidavit giving the details of all the articles which were in the suit cases they have lost. The list of articles extend s from drinking water bottles valued at Rs.25/- each to gold, black beads chain & pendant worth Rs. 10,000/- and cash worth Rs. 5,000/-. While working out compensation the machinery under the Consumer Protection Act cannot accept the statement, even in the form of affidavit, of the complainant. There should be satisfactory evidence. Secondly the Railways cannot be asked to compensate for the loss of valuables which the passengers choose to carry in a suit-case. All carriers, including planes given only a flat rate compensation representing the value of articles that an average passenger would normally carry. Otherwise any person can file a complaint claiming huge amounts supported by an affidavit. We have, therefore, only to fix the compensation on the value of articles which would be normally carried by a person who travels from one place to another in India. The total amount of Rs. 5,143/- for three persons as computed by the District Forum appears to be reasonable and does not warrant any interference. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.