F.A.145 OF 2021                                   

                   Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.             The case of the   complainant, in nutshell    is that the complainant had booked a ticket for journey in Tata-Amristar Express from Tata to Varanasi on 20.03.2017.  She was allowed to sit in berth No.46 at S-11 coach. But she exchanged her berth because her family members are at berth No.42 in coach S-1 and the train was supposed to reach at Varanasi Station at about 8.00 am. It is alleged that on 21.03.2017  at about 6.00 am  the complainant found  that her personal money purse containing valuable articles such as Mobile Phones, power bank, gold ear rings gold nose rings cash 1400-1500 driving license  etc. had been  stolen away. Thereafter she could not find out any railway person or any attendant in that berth. So, she informed the at Varanasi GRP railway station. Since, the RPF and other employees   of the railway were not present in the train, the theft of her money purse could not trace out. Therefore, she filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP for not posting any railway personnel to look after the safety of the passengers.

4.               The OP     filed written version stating that the complainant had  performed the journey on 20.03.2017 but they were not aware of stolen of personal money purses  contravening safety of the stolen articles. According to them no complaint has been lodged in RPF or TTE, rather the complainant alleged to have lodged FIR in GRP railway station. They also averred that under Section-100 of the Railway Act  for loss of the personal luggage  they are not liable.

5.                After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “That the complaint petition is allowed. The Ops are jointly and severally is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards the stolen articles. Further the Ops are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) by way of compensation to the complainant for causing him mental, physical and financial loss  and agony and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) as litigation costs. This amount shall be paid by the Ops to the complainant  within a period of  8 weeks from the date of  receipt of a certificate copy of this order, failing which the Ops shall pay interest @ 5% per annum on this amount from the date of filing the complaint, i.e. 16.11.2017 till its realization.”

6.                  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the written version and materials on record with proper perspectives. He further submitted that learned District Forum ought to have applied judicial mind to  Section-100 of the Railway Act whereunder the railway personnel are not responsible for loss of valuable  articles  unless it is proved that loss/destruction/damage were due to destruction, damage  or mis-presentation etc, on the part of the security of the railway. He also submitted that complainant has admitted that due to his fault the theft took place. When she has admitted about her fault, the question of recovery of any compensation from the OP does not arise. He also submitted that every train of the railway goes with the guard, TT and railway personnel and no information was given to any personnel of the OP for the loss. Hence, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.                Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.

8.            It is admitted fact that the complainant was travelling journey by purchasing ticket from Tata to Varanasi.  It is also not in dispute that she has exchanged the seat by boarding   to coach S-1 at berth No.42. On perusal of the complaint it appears that she has admitted that due to her fault the theft took place. The only allegation in this case that the complainant did not find out any railway personnel whereas the OP submitted that no complaint has been received by them. No other witness examined to show that due to absence of any railway personnel in the train or compartment occurrence took place.  Moreover, she admitted to have lodged FIR before the GRP, Varanasi. If there is FIR only available with GRP but not with the OP. When there is negligence on the part of the complainant and she failed to prove to have informed the OP, it is difficult to find out the deficiency in service   on the part of the OP. Hence, the finding of the learned District Forum is not agreed to and as such it is set-aside.  Appeal is allowed. No cost.

                  Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

                           DFR be sent back forthwith.