Per Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) is to the order dated 13.3.2017, passed by Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, “the State Commission”), whereby the State Commission has concurred with the findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Hyderabad (in short ‘the District Forum) and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the General Manager, South Central Railway and Divisional Railway Manager, Vijayawada Division (hereinafter referred to as “the Railways”). 2. Briefly stated, facts for the disposal of the Revision Petition are that on 02.06.2010 the Complainant/Respondent alongwith her family was travelling in Tirupathi-Machilipatnam Express in S2 Coach with berth Nos.17, 18, 19, & 20, vide ticket No.07581439. They were going to attend some marriage ceremony, therefore, inter alia they were having a suit case containing sarees, dresses, cash and golden ornaments. The suit case was locked with the hook provided under the berth. When the train stopped at Vijayawada junction at about 2.30, they noticed that three strangers entered into the coach without any luggage. When the Complainant woke up at 5.00 am they found that their suitcase was missing. The Complainant lodged a Complaint in the Government Railway Police Station for theft of her luggage with the list of items including the suit case. When she did not receive any response from the Railway Authorities, she sent a notice to the Divisional Manager, Vijayawada. Further, the Railway Authorities did not respond to the notice. Being aggrieved, she filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the Railways to pay Rs.2,70,000/- towards cost of gold ornaments and Rs.9000/- towards cost of Pattu Silk Sarees and Dresses and Rs.1500/- cash with interest. She also sought Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony suffered by her and the family and Rs.10,000/- towards cost. 3. The Railways resisted the Complaint, primarily on the ground that the District Forum-III, Hyderabad has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint since the cause of action arose in Vijayawada and Machilipatnam. On merits, the Railways pleaded that they are not liable to pay any compensation since there was no deficiency on their part and the Complainant herself was responsible for the theft. As per provisions of Rule No. 506 of Indian Coaching Tariff No.26, Point “all articles taken into the carriage are carried at the owners risk.” The Railways also took the ground that since the luggage was not booked in terms of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 there is no liability of the Railways for loss of luggage. In the FIR lodged with the Police, the Complainant has shown the value of the contents of bag as Rs.40,000/- whereas in the Complaint she has declared the value of lost luggage as Rs.2,80,500/-. She has also not placed any evidence to prove that she boarded the train with such gold and cash as claimed by her. The Railways also took the ground that during investigation the police arrested the accused, namely, Vijayakumar and recovered the stolen property worth Rs.30,000/- and charge sheet was also filed against the accused. The Complainant did not appear before the Trial Court to identify the stolen property and filed the frivolous Consumer Complaint claiming huge compensation. 4. Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Ext. A-1 to A-8 filed on behalf of the Complainant and Ext. B-1 behalf of the Opposite Parties, the District Forum allowed the Complaint in part directing the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards cost within 30 days, failing which Opposite Parties were to pay interest @ 9%. 5. Being aggrieved, the Opposite Parties preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission did not find any merit in the Appeal and dismissed the same holding that the Complainant has described clearly each and every gold ornament alongwith the weight in the police Complaint. If she wanted to lodge a false claim, she would have exaggerated the compensation. She could not produce the receipts or evidence because the ornaments were presented to her by her father in her marriage. The State Commission also held that one gold article was recovered from the offender but the police did not disclose about the remaining articles when the offender was caught by them. It was the duty of the police to obtain complete information from the offender about the remaining stolen articles. Therefore, the burden lies on the Railway Police to disclose the fate of the remaining stolen articles which they failed to do so. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/ Railways vehemently contended that the ticket was purchased for travelling from Nellore to Machilipatnam and that the District Forum-III, Hyderabad has no jurisdiction; that the FIR has quantified the amount to ₹40,000/- and that the State Commission has erred in awarding an amount of ₹3,20,000/- based on the Complainant’s statement that 108 gm quantity of gold ornaments was lost. 7 It is the case of the learned Counsel for the Complainant that South Central Railway, being Pan India with their main office at Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and hence as per Section 11 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum-III, Hyderabad does have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. For better understanding the aspect of territorial jurisdiction Section 11 (b) is reproduced as hereunder: “any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution” 8. The cause title shows that General Manager, South Central Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad has been made a party. Keeping in view the aforenoted section and that General Manager, South Central Railway Nilayam, Secunderabad has already been made a party, we are of the considered view that District Forum-III, Hyderabad has jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Railways has also argued that the Railway Tribunal under Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the claim for compensation for loss of goods and that the Consumer Fora does not have jurisdiction to entertain this claim. It is an admitted fact that this loss of luggage was being carried as personal luggage and was not booked either in the brake van or by way of cargo through the Railway and therefore keeping in view that the Section 100 of the Railways Act 1989 deals with ‘goods specifically booked as luggage’, we are of the considered view that Section 100 does not apply in the instant case as at the cost of repetition, the articles were not booked into any carriage. 10. The second contention of the learned Counsel is that the State commission has wrongly awarded ₹3,20,000/-, when the FIR 52 of 2010 dated 03.06.2010, though shows the list of items, the Railway Police estimated the worth of lost items at ₹40,000/-. We find force in the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant that the jewellery lost in the train journey was presented at the time of the Complainant’s marriage on 27.05.1983, by her late father and she is unable to produce any receipt or evidence, further one of the gold articles was recovered from the offender and the same was informed by the Railway Police, Gudiwada to recover the same through Railway Court Vijayawada. The State Commission has rightly concurred with the finding of the District Forum that the burden lies on the Railway Police to disclose the fate of the remaining stolen golden articles. It is pertinent to mention that under Exhibit A-2, which is a police Complaint given to the Railway Police, Machilipatnam, the Complainant stated that she has lost the following items: “A four round step chain weighing 5 sovereigns equalling 40 grams, Emerald necklace weighing 2 ½sovereigns equalling 20 grams, Four Bangles 4 sovereigns equalling 32 grams, One Broad bangle weighing 2 sovereigns equalling 16 grams and an amount of Rs.1500/- in cash besides 2 Pattu Sarees and 2 Punjabi dresses and miscellaneous items.”
12. The District Forum, while calculating the amount of ₹3,20,000/- has observed as follows: “Having regard to the fact that the Complainant had lost 13½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and also expensive clothing, we are inclined to award reasonable compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- towards the value of the goods lost, computed @ 20,000/- per sovereign and further compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment experienced by the Complainant. The complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are held jointly and severally liable for deficiency of service. In the result, the Complaint is partly allowed with the following terms: The Opposite Parties shall jointly and severally pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards the costs.” 13. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in this concurrent finding of both the fora below regarding the valuation. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Railways that the Railway Police has estimated the worth of lost items only at ₹40,000/- is unsustainable, keeping in view that the price of gold, which was 20,000/- per sovereign and that the Complainant had lost 13½ sovereigns of the gold ornaments. The Estimation made of ₹40,000/- was only a rough estimate and an initial observation does not have any basis. 14. Further, the State Commission while observing that the Railways are bound to provide safety and security to the passenger and not allow any unauthorized passenger to enter into the compartments as noted as follows: “11. ................Chapter-3 of the Security Management in Indian Railways deals with Protection of Passengers and their belonging including strategy to control crime, wherein it is mentioned in crystal clear terms as follows: - “The most important aspect of any security strategy is to ensure the safety and security of its passengers. The Railways are the most preferred mode of transport in India and are spread over a vast geographical area of over 64015 route kilometers and 7030 number of stations. The citizen Charter of Indian Railways spells out the railways commitment to prove safe and dependable train services to passengers” 3.3 Managing Security on Trains: The maintenance and security of trains is a major area of concern as Railways have a linear territory, traversing inter-state lines. The GRP are responsible generally for the prevention and detection of crime on the Railways within their respective State jurisdictions. This includes maintenance of law and order within Railway premises and on running trains, registration of cases and their investigation. Their duties include prevention of offence against the travelling public and their belongings by patrolling of the platforms and escorting trains. As per Circular dated 11.09.1998, Ministry of Railways, Government of India published some of the important duties. The list of duties prescribed by the Railways Administration for “Train Ticket Examiner (TTE) for sleeper coaches at Nos.4,14,16 & 17 are as follows: - “The coach, guide to their berth/seats and prevent unauthorized persons from entering the coach. He shall in particular ensure that persons holding platform tickets, who come to see of or receive passengers, do not enter the coach. Kept lathed when the train is on the move and open them up for passengers as and when require. Trains are kept locked between 22.00 and 6.00 hours to prevent outsiders from entering the coach, attempt and ensure that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorized persons do not enter the coach. The above duties indicate that there is a responsibility cast on the TTE to be vigilant about anyone other than the reserved ticket holders entering the compartment. He is required to prevent even a relative of the passengers with a platform ticket from entering a coach. Thus, if the TTE is not performing any of the above mentioned duties, a case of deficiency in service against them is justified……….” 15. Keeping in view that there is no challenge to these findings of the State Commission in their grounds of Revision Petition with respect to the duty of Railways in taking care of the security of passengers and also with respect to not allowing unauthorised passengers inside the compartment, we are of the considered view that both the fora below have rightly concluded that the Railways was responsible for the loss of luggage, which was not only immediately reported, but an FIR was also lodged and a part of the gold ornaments was also recovered from the offender. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the concurrent finding of both the fora below specially keeping in view our limited revisional jurisdiction as envisaged by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta versus United India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 11 SCC 269. 16. In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed, no order as to costs. |
