IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE. S. TAMILVANAN, :: PRESIDENT
THIRU.K. BASKARAN, :: JUDICIAL MEMBER
TMT.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI, :: MEMBER
F.A.No.161/2018
[Against the order passed in C.C.No.225/2014, dated 09.06.2017 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (North)]
THURSDAY, THE 12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019.
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai – 600 003. :: Appellant / opposite party
Vs.
Mrs.P.Jayanthi,
W/o.Mr.T.N.Pathasarathy,
207/10, Asiad Colony,
Anna Nagar West,
Chennai – 600 101. :: Respondent/ Complainant
For Appellant /opposite party : M/s.N.R.Narayanen.
For Respondent/ complainant : Party in person.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 14.08.2019 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
TMT.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI, MEMBER
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant / opposite party under section 15 read with section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order in C.C.No.225/2014 dated 09.06.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North).
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Forum.
3. The short factual matrix giving rise to this appeal:
The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not providing sufficient security for the complainant during her travel in a reserved compartment of the Train from Mumbai to Chennai resulting in loss of her “Mangalyam”/ thali chain weighing 4 ½ sovereigns of gold. Hence, she prayed for compensation for the loss of the Mangalyam.
The opposite party had filed version stating that they were not responsible for the loss and the remedy of complainant lies only with the Government Railway Police, which is responsible for registration, investigation and prosecution of offences relating to maintenance of law and order in railway premises. They also contended that as per Railway Act, 1989, they are not responsible for the loss destruction, damage etc., of any luggage unless a railway servant had booked the luggage and had given a receipt. Thus, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The learned District Forum after analyzing the pleadings and the documents filed by both parties was pleased to allow the complaint holding that the opposite party had failed to provide sufficient security to the complainant resulting in deficiency in service and ordered the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant.
Aggrieved by the above the opposite party had preferred this appeal.
4. Points for Consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so, to what relief she is entitled?
2) Whether the appeal has to be allowed on the grounds alleged by the opposite party?
5. The complainant had filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The opposite party had filed proof affidavit but no documents were filed on their side.
6. Point No.1:- Admitted facts:-
a) that the complainant travelled in second class cum-reserved compartment by train No.11027 from Mumbai to Chennai as evidenced by
Ex.A4;
b) that when the complainant woke up at Chennai Central Station she found her Mangalyam weighing 4 ½ sovereign was missing;
c) that a complaint under Ex.A1 was lodged with the Sub-Inspector, Railway Police Station, Chennai Central and a FIR was registered;
d) that as the Mangalyam could not be recovered, the complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not providing proper security measures;
e) that the complaint was partly allowed awarding Rs.1 lakh towards compensation besides Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
7. On the admitted facts it is seen that the travel by the complainant with the opposite party is not disputed. It was argued by the counsel for the opposite party that there was no allegation in the complaint with regard to the security measures. The party in person appearing as complainant replied that travelling in a reserved compartment itself is only for security and safety reasons. The contention by the complainant is acceptable for the reason that in a reserved compartment it was the TTE’s responsibility to ensure that no unauthorized persons enter the compartment and that the passengers in the reserved compartments travel in a safe and secured way. Thus, the act of not providing proper security amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
8. The next contention urged by the counsel for the opposite party is that the complaint to the Railway Police was made belatedly. It is seen that the complainant is a senior citizen and hence the reason given by her that she was put to shock which caused the delay has to be accepted.
9. Therefore, when the theft was not disputed by the opposite party and as we have already held that no proper security measures were provided by the opposite party, we feel it is the responsibility of the Railways to compensate the loss of the complainant who had suffered the loss due to the negligence and deficiency in service on their part. Hence, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the award of compensation of Rs.1 lakh by the learned District Forum for the loss of Mangalyam weighing 4 ½ sovereigns and the mental agony suffered by the complainant is justified. Thus, point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.
10. Point No.2:- As point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Thus, point no.2 is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), made in C.C.No.225/2014, dated 09.06.2017. No order as to costs.
S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI K. BASKARAN, S. TAMILVANAN,
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
INDEX; - YES/No
Bsd /e/LM/ Orders/
