S.Palanisamy vs General Manager, Southern Railway

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE Complainant travelled from Madras to Khammam on 31.8.1989 by Grand Trunk Express in the sleeper coach with his luggage i.e., an Aristocrat Suitcase which contained some important documents. He went to sleep keeping the suitcase behind his head and when he woke-up at about 2.15 a.m. on 1.9.1989 he found the suitcase missing. He preferred a complaint to the Traveling Ticket Examiner and to the Police. THE stolen suit-case has not been recovered. According to the Complainant there were deficiency of service and negligence on the part of Railway Administration in not taking proper care of his luggage. He claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,92,420/-. The claim is resisted by the Opposite Party Railways. It contended that the railways is not responsible for the theft of the personal luggage belonging to the Complainant which was exclusively in his personal custody. It was not entrusted to the railway, the petition'' must therefore fail.

The complainant has lost his personal luggage while traveling in the Grand Trunk Express. The personal luggage is a suitcase which he has kept with him at the time of travel. The Railway Administration is not rendering any service to the Complainant in respect of this personal luggage in his custody and the complainant cannot therefore claim to be a consumer so far as the Railway Administration is concerned in respect of the carriage of this personal luggage. Further under Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act of 1989, Railway Administration is not responsible for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked a luggage and given receipt therefore. In the case of luggage carried by the passenger in his charge, there is no responsibility for the Railway Administration unless it is proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the railways or any of its servants. It is not the case of the Complainant that this loss was due to negligence on the part of the Railway Administration or its servants. It is his own negligence which has led to the loss of luggage kept by him behind his head. The complaint is not therefore maintainable.

IN the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed but without costs. Complaint dismissed.