Appeal No.761/08

Railway Station Supdt.,Sadulpur & ors. V. Om Prakash Bhargav


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Smt.Maya Jain ,counsel for the appellants

None for the respondent




Date of Judge,ment: 8.7.09



BY THE STATE COMMISSION



This appeal has been filed by the appellants railway department which was ops before the District Forum,Churu against the order dated 2.2.08 passed by the District Forum,Churu in complaint no.116/07,by which the complaint of the respondent was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as amount of compensation for the loss of goods in general compartment and further to pay Rs.1000/- as amount of cost of litigation.


It arises in the following circumstances:


That as per the case of the complainant respondent that on 18.10.2006 he caught the train at sadulpur coming from Mahendragarh to Bhadra and was travelling in the general coach no.3851 and at the time he was having one bag in which goods and

2


items worth Rs.25,000/- were there. It was further stated in the complaint that there was no light in the compartment and someone had stolen his bag and for the deficiency the complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellants before the District Forum interalia stating that since the bag in question was not booked by the complainant respondent and since he was travelling in the general coach and if any loss had occurred,the appellants could not be held responsible and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after taking into consideration that since there was no light in the compartment,therefore,the appellants were responsible and the impugned order as stated above was passed.


Aggrieved against that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellants.


In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that if any person travels in a general coach in such a case if any loss occurs for which railway administration could not be held responsible and thus the findings recorded by the District Forum are erroneous one and be quashed and appeal be allowed.


We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.


There is no dispute on the point that the complainant respondent was travelling in the general compartment and no attendent is provided by the appellants for the protection of the belongings of the passengers and the care had to be taken by the

3


passengers themselves of their belongings. For that S.100 of the Railway Act,1989 for convenience,is produced here.


“Section.100. Responsibility as carrier of luggage.- A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss,destruction,damage,deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefor 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.”


A bare perusal of the above section clearly reveals that the railway administration would not be liable if the goods were not booked and since in the present case the complainant respondent was travelling in a general compartment and his bag was not booked,therefore,for the loss of the bag the appellants could not be held responsible.

So far as the argument that there was no light in the compartment is concerned,though the appellants had stated that there was light even then,in our considered opinion,the appellants could not be held responsible.


Thus,it is held that if the luggage was not booked and it was lost from the personal custody of the passenger,the railway administration could not be held responsible for that loss and for coming to the above conclusion the Commission has placed reliance on a judgement reported in 2005 NCJ 762(NC) in the case of Savitri Awasthi G. General Manager,Northern Railway passed

4


by the Hon'ble National Commission,Delhi.


When this being the position,the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed could not be sustained as they suffer from basic infirmity and illegality and the appeal deserves to be allowed.


The result is that this appeal filed by the appellants is allowed,impugned order dated 2.2.08 passed by the District Forum,Churu is quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant respondent is dismissed.




Member President