DATE OF FILING : 31.05.2016.
DATE OF S/R : 13.07.2016.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 19.05.2017.
Sri Pradip Kumar Pramanik,
son of late Nirmal Kumar Pramanik,
Ratherarak, G.T. Road ( East ), P.O. Chandannagar,
District Hooghly, West Bengal,
PIN 712136. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The General Manager,
Eastern Railway,
17, N.S. Road, Kolkata,
PIN 700001.
2. The Divisional Commercial Manager,
Eastern Railway,
DRM Building, Howrah Railway Station,
Howrah 711101.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Govt. Railway Police, Yatri Niwar ( 2nd Floor ),
Howrah Railway Station, New Complex,
Howrah 711101.
4. Officer In Charge,
Gaya GRPS, Gaya Railway Station Road, Gaya,
Bihar 823001. ……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Banani Mohanta ( Ganguli ).
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Pradip Kumar Pramanik, against o.p., General Manager, Eastern Railway and three others, praying for a direction upon the o.ps. to arrange for recovery of the petitioner’s stolen articles containing costly garments amounting to Rs. 25,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for causing mental agony and harassment and to pay interest upon the amount also and for other reliefs.
- The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner returned from Kanpur along with his wife, Chhaya Pramanik, by Kalka Mail in A.C. II tier with the reserved tickets in coach A2 reservation ticket no. E 84882480 and E 84882481, seat no. 23 & 24 with PNR no. 230391878 & 2203962038 and during such journey theft occurred in the said train between Gaya to KQR on 02.6.2015 at about 5.05 a.m. and he had lost two luggages ( trolley bag ) which was kept under seat no. 23. The complainant immediately rushed to the competent authority and lodged F.I.R. before the TTE, Howrah in charge of such compartment. The petitioner then several times visited the office of the o.p. to recover his lost article but the o.p. could not give any intimation about the progress of recovery of lost article. This dispute being a consumer dispute, the petitioner having no other alternative to file this case before this Forum to get the relief.
- The o.p. nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 being the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, and Superintendent of Police, Howrah Railway Police, Howrah, and Officer in charge, Gaya GRPS, contested the case by filing a signle written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case and they further stated that on the basis of the complaint, the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF Eastern Railway has placed his comments to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Easter Railway. As regards allegation o.p. no. 1 placed comment where the theft occurred does not come within the Eastern Railway and Eastern Railway Central has control over the said incident. As regards allegation of theft the petitioner lodged FIR with head TTE, Sri S.K. Bodra, for necessary action and the matter was referred to GRP, Gaya, for registration and taking necessary action at the earliest. As regards allegation the o.ps. further stated that deployment of RPF are discharged correctly and it is ascertained to mention as per Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989 the Railway Administration shall not be held responsible for loss, destruction , damage, deterioration or non delivery of any luggage unless passenger booked the luggage and given a receipt and in the instant case luggage was carried by the passenger and there having no negligence caused on the part of the o.ps., railway authority, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for and the instant case be dismissed.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip off reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit as well as document being their tickets bearing nos. 230391878 & 2203962038 being tickets from Kanpur Central to Howrah by Kalka Mail in coach no. A2, berth nos. 23 & 24 and also copy of FIR lodged by the petitioner and also his letter to the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, and the reply of the Divisional Commercial Manager for DRM, Eastern Railway, Howrah, addressing the petitioner that U/S 100 of the Railways Act 1989 the Railway Administration shall not be held responsible for the loss, destruction , damage, deterioration or non delivery of any luggage unless petitioner booked the luggage and given a receipt therein and unless it is proved that the loss or damage was caused due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the service personnel of the railways.
- This Forum heard the ld. counsels for both sides and keeping in mind the submission of the counsels and the facts come from the petition of complaint as well as the written version thisForum finds that in the instant case the allegation is that the petitioner did board Kalka Mail from Kanpur Central for coming to Howrah Station and they boarded A.C. II tier and their berths allottedwere 23 & 24 and on 02.6.2015 at about 5.05 a.m. while they were passing through Gaya to KQR then theft was occurred and their suit case containing wool garments and other clothes were taken by the thieveand they lodged complaint on the same datebut there was no progress and sothey filed this case before this Forum. The counsel for the o.ps. submitted before the Forum that the petitioner is not entitled to relief as prayed for because U/S 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 it is laid down that when the goods are not booked and there was no negligence on the part of the railway authority then the railways cannot be made responsible for such loss or damage.
- In the instant case the petitioners were in the A.C. coach which is supposed to be well guarded by the RPF of the o.ps. and the RPF personnel were deployed for that purpose but in spite their deployment the thief was able to take away the goods of the petitioners who are senior citizens of our state. It is the sheer instance of negligence on the part of RPF as well as railway administration as the mail train which are always guarded by RPF specially the A.C. coach and in absence of their negligence such theft could not place. Thus the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the loss incurred by them even if it is a token one as they have not filed any statement in support of their claim.
In the result, the claim case succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. No. 191 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps.
The petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. The O.Ps. are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of their lost garments and the o.ps. are directed to pay the above sum to the petitioners within one month from the date of this order and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs also be paid within 30 days from the date of this order.
The complainant is at liberty to put the final order into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
