AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
The respondent / complainant states that he has not received the conveyance charges and miscellaneous expenses as per the order of this Commission. The petitioner is directed to pay the said charges to the complainant within two weeks from today, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to seek execution of the order of this Commission, whereby payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant was directed as conveyance charges and miscellaneous expenses.
The complainant / respondent along with his wife boarded a train for travelling from Bhopal to Raipur on 07.2.2013. They were traveling in an air-conditioned coach and carrying a suitcase alleged to be containing goods and jewelery worth Rs.1.00 lacs. It is alleged in the consumer complaint that on 08.2.2013, the suitcase was stolen near Bhatapara, due to negligence of railway employees. It is alleged that when the train reached Bilaspur, some persons, who were not authorized to travel in a reserved coach had boarded the coach in which the complainant and his wife were travelling. They had objected to the said unauthorized persons entering the coach, but the TTE did not pay any attention to their complaint. An FIR was lodged with the police station on 08.2.2013. The complainant / respondent thereafter filed a consumer complaint, alleging negligence on the part of the railway officials.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which denied any negligence on the part of the railway officials.
The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, they are before this Commission way of this revision petition.
Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 on which reliance is placed by the petitioners reads as under:
"Responsibility as carrier of luggage - A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration of non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefore 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."
It would thus be seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways on any of its employees.
Though, It is alleged in the consumer complaint that some unauthorized persons had entered the coach in which the complainant and his wife were travelling, at Bilaspur ,and TTE did not take any action on the protest registered with him by the complainant / respondent in this regard, no such averment is made in the FIR which the complainant had registered soon after theft of the suitcase. There is no explanation as to why the said averment was not made in the FIR lodged by none other than the complainant himself. Had some unauthorized persons entered the reserved coach and had the complainant lodged protest with the TTE in this regard, he would certainly have stated so in the FIR lodged at the police station.
Even after lodging the FIR at the police station, the complainant / respondent did not make any complaint to railway officer alleging therein that some unauthorized persons had entered the coach at Bilaspur and that he had lodged the protest in this regard with the TTE of the coach. Again, no explanation is forthcoming from the complainant / respondent for not making any such complaint if there was negligence on the part of the TTE in taking action on the protest alleged to be lodged by him.
The consumer complaint was lodged more than one year after the alleged theft. Throughout this period, the complainant did not allege any negligence on the part of the railway officials, resulting in the theft of his suitcase. I therefore, hold that the complainant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of the railway officials in performance of their duty, resulting in the theft of his suitcase. Therefore, it cannot be said that the theft of the suitcase had happened on account of the negligence of the railway officials.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the petitioners are not liable for the loss caused to the complainant on account of theft of the suitcase. The complainant ought to have taken sufficient safeguard to protect his suitcase from any possible theft by using a chain and lock so as to secure the suitcase at the time he was sleeping. Had such a precaution been taken, the theft in all probability would not have occurred. It appears that someone committed theft of the suitcase taking advantage of the same having been kept unchained. The theft could have been committed even by a person travelling in the reserved coach on a valid ticket. It cannot be said that without entering of an authorized passenger in the coach, the theft of the suitcase could not have been possible.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are set aside. The complaint is consequently dismissed, with no order as to costs.