Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Calling in question the Order dated 03-04-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in CC/364/2015, whereby the complaint case has been allowed, this Appeal is moved for reversal of the said decision.
The complaint case was filed alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in safeguarding the belongings of the Respondent in course of a train journey being undertook by him.
We heard the parties in the matter and gone through the material on record.
Citing Sec. 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant questioned the wisdom of the Ld. District Forum to adjudicate the instant case in the first place.
It appears, whenever fingers are raised against the various shortcomings of the Indian Railways and they are summoned before the Consumer Fora, feigning ignorance about the settled position of law, they raise this issue on a routine matter.
The Hon’ble National Commission cast the die in this regard long ago. The decision taken in G.M., South Central Railway vs R.V. Kumar & Anr., IV (2005) CPJ 57 NC; Union of India & Ors. V. J. S. Kunwar, 1 (2010) CPJ 90 (NC); Union of India & Ors. V. Sanjiv Dilsukhraj Dave & Anr., 2003 CTJ 196 (CP) (NCDRC); Mrs. Kanthimathi & Anr. V. Govt. of India, I (2003) CPJ 16 (NC) is worth recalling in the matter. As dispute of identical nature is very much maintainable before the Consumer Fora, the objection raised by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant is not tenable.
Coming to the merit of the case, it appears, on the fateful day, not only the Respondent, but the valuable belongings of several other passengers of A1, A2 and A3 coaches of the said train, in which the Respondent was travelling, were taken away by unidentified miscreants. Though the Respondent questioned the abnormal halting of the train at Rajamundri station (20 minutes instead of scheduled 5 minutes) on that day, the Appellant conveniently overlooked this fact. Without the tacit patronage of Railway personnel, such massive loot inside the train compartments cannot take place. Surprisingly, no departmental enquiry was carried out to fix up the responsibility of Railway personnel. Until and unless the Railways appreciate that such unsavoury incidents put the very credibility of Indian Railways at stake, there would be no abatement to the misery of hapless passengers.
If any untoward incident takes place in course of train journey inside the train, the Appellant cannot wash its hands off under any circumstances. It is the bounden duty of RPF personnel and TTE concerned to prevent entry of unauthorized persons inside reserved train compartments. Had they discharged their duties diligently, so many hapless bona fide passengers could be saved from facing the ignominy/awkward situations at strangers land far away from their homes. The incident unmasks the actual state of affairs of Indian Railways Authorities. Surely, a Railway passenger does not deserve this.
The complaint case being rightly allowed by the Ld. District Forum, there remains no question of interfering with the same in any manner whatsoever.
We, therefore, dismiss this Appeal with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- being payable by the Appellant to the Respondent.
