BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Tuesday, 6th October 2015
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 78 / 2014
G. Sai Kumar, S/o G.M.B. Murali Krishna,
Residing at D.No. 3/1223-2,
Sionpuram, Kadapa city. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Inspector of A.P. Govt. Railway Police Station /
The Sub inspector of A.P. Govt. Railway Police Station /
Station House Officer, A.P. govt. Police Station, Kadapa.
2. The Sub-inspector of Railway Police Station /
Station House Officer, Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway
Police Station, Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, New Delhi.
3. The Sub inspector of Railway Police Station /
Station House Officer, Jhansi Railway police Station,
Jhansi Railway Station, Uttar Pradesh.
4. The Union of India, Rep. by the Divisional Personal Officer,
South Central Railway, Gunthakal, Anantapur district.
5. The Union of India, Rep. by the Senior Commercial Manager,
South Central Railway, Gunthakal, Anantapur District.
6. The Union of India, Rep. by the Chief Commercial Manaer,
South Central Railways, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
(Respondents 5 & 6 are added as per orders in
I.A. No. 35/2015, dt. 01-7-2015). ….. Respondents
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 28-9-2015 in the presence of Sri D.V.S. Prasad, Advocate for complainant and Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for R1, R4, R5 & R6 and R2 appeared in person and R3 called absent and set exparte on 12-1-2015 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- It is submitted that the petitioner herein was a student and studying degree final year. He was booked a second class sleeper ticket to A.P. Sampark Kranthi Express on 8-12-2013 and coach number S7, seat number 64 was allotted to him. when the A.P. Samparkranthi express is ready to start at Nizamuddin railway station at about 7.30 a.m on 8-12-2013, a group of Hizras / Korza people third generation persons (comprising 5 to 8 persons entered in to the coach, while passing through the coach, high handedly stolen the petitioner lap top, when the train was about to start and hence he was not in a position to resist the high handed activities of those persons.
3. The petitoner further submitted that even though he was given a complaint to the concerned ticket collector at Nizamuddin Railway Station when the train is in moving conditions the station another ticket collector came to check the ticket and further again the petitioner disclosed the theft facts to him and told him and also requested him to register a complaint and he was bluntly refused and stated that he was not a concerned ticket collector to book the complaint and the same might have been registered at Nizamuddin Railway Station only. The petitioner further submitted that even though he was tried to give a complaint to the concerned ticket collector at Andhra Pradesh State concerned ticket collector as well as Railway Authorities at Secunderabad Railway Station and they suggested for giving the said complaint at Kadapa Railway station police authorities. So the petitioner have been forced again to approach the concerned railway police authorities at Kadapa railway station and they replied that the theft was at Nizamuddin Railway Station and you must present a complaint there only but not here and the said police authorities bluntly refused the same.
4. Even though the petitioner requested all the concerned ticket collector’s from Nizamuddin Station to Kadapa number of times no body was felt their responsibility and it is their prime duty when any passenger giving a complaint and the said complaint to be registered by them and the same should be sent to concerned railway authorities. It is the primary duty of the ticket collector’s as well as police authorities to register the complaint received by the passengers and in the present cases not done the same and the same was badly affected on tier part and also shows gross negligence towards them. Hence, the petitioner have no further option in sending the belated complaint to the concerned authorities on 11-12-2013 when the petitioner failed to register the complaint by none of the concerned railway authorities.
5. Finally, the petitioner personally approached the concerned police authorities at Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station on 19-01-2014 and presented a written complaint and hence, the said authorities finally have been forced to register the complaint as zero FIR no i.e. 20140051, dt. 19-1-2014 under section 379 IPC and the said complaint was transferred to Jhansi Railway Station. It is further states that neither Hazarat Nizamuddin railway station police authorities nor Jhansi Railway station police authorities collected the lap top along with the bag for the reasons best known to them and in those circumstances the petitioner has been forced finally to give the legal notice dt. 22-5-2014 through his counsel but in vain. The complainant herewith enclosed the zero copy of documents for your kind perusal. Due to your negligence and deficiency acts the petitioner is suffering from mentally, physical and financially which amounts to deficiency of service.
6. The complainant therefore prays that the Hon’ble forum be pleased to direct the respondents a) to collect the lap tap from the said offenders and to hand over the same to the petitioner, b) to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation or rendering deficiency of service, c) to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards damages for mental agony and suffering, d) grant Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the complaint and e) grant such other and further reliefs as the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper in the interests of justice.
7. Respondent No. 1, filed counter that the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations of the complaint which are not expressly admitted herein by this respondent.
8. This respondent submits that police station jurisdiction is only limited to Yerragudipadu Railway Station of Yerraguntal Mandal, Kadapa District to Nandalur Railway Station of Kadapa District. Admittedly the alleged his handed stolen of the property laptop is alleged to be took place at Hazarat Nizamuddin Railway Station by Hizras, which is beyond the control of this respondent. Hence, this respondent is nothing to do with the alleged stolen of the property of the complainant.
9. The allegation of the complaint that the petitioner have been forced to approach the railway police Kadapa is false. For that matter nobody including the complainant approached this respondent. Hence, the question of bluntly refusing by this respondent officials without receiving the complaint, does not arise. This respondent submits that no passenger gave a complaint about the alleged subject stolen of the property to the Railway Police Station, Kadapa. Hence, no entries are made in their station records. Hence, the question of negligence or deficiency of service does not arise. No notice is served to this respondent.
10. It is evident that the Hazarath Nizamuddin Railway Station, Railway registered a case under section 379 IPC on 19-01-2014 shows that the concerned railway police are investigating in to the matter. Hence, this respondent humbly submits that he is no way responsible to the incident that alleged to be occurred at Hazart Nizamuddin Railway Station.
11. There is no any sort or negligence or deficiency of service on the part of this respondent. This respondent humbly submits that he is an unnecessary party in this case. This respondent humbly submits that he is not the proper and necessary party to this case and unnecessarily impleaded in this case.
12. Therefore, this respondent humbly prays that the honourable forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint as against this respondent in the interest of justice.
13. R2 filed counter that on 19-01-2014 complainant G. Sai Kumar, S/o GMB Murali Krishna, Resident of D.No. 3/1223-2, Soin puram colony, Kadapa Andhra Pradesh came in police station Hazarat Nizamuddin Railway Station, Delhi for lodging of complaint regarding theft of laptop at Jhansi Railway Station, U.P and a written complaint was given by him to duty officer HC Ashok Kumar No. 38/RM in this regard. As the place of occurrence of falls in the jurisdiction of GRP Jhansi Railway Station. A zero FIR No. 41/14 dt. 19-1-2014 under section 379 IPC was registered on his compliant and same was sent along with statement of the complainant to concerned police station GRP Jhansi GRP vide dispatch No. 51/14-SHO/HN Din Railway Delhi dt. 20-1-2014 through proper channel for further investigation.
14. Respondent No. 4 filed counter that the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations of the compliant which are not expressly admitted herein this respondent.
15. At the outset this respondent submits that he is not concerned with the subject matter and this respondent is not the proper and necessary party tot his case and unnecessarily impleaded in this case. This respondent humbly submits that duties and responsibilities are only limited to as mentioned below.
i. The establishment matters concerned with man power planning, service conditions, recruitment, training, selection, promotion, leave, increment, transfer, payment of wages, incentives, service conduct rules, discipline and appeal rules and retirement benefits.
ii. The staff welfare aspect concerned with various welfare schemes.
iii. The industrial relations concerned with trade unions in Railways.
iv. The labour legislation aspect concerned with industrial act and labour laws.
16. This respondent is no way concerned regarding commercial duties i.e. passenger amenities, customer care with travelling public and subject matter theft cases as these are not under this respondent jurisdiction.
17. Therefore, this respondent humbly prays that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against this respondent in the above case in the interest of justice.
18. Respondents 5 & 6 filed counter that the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The complainant is put strict proof of all the allegations which are not expressly admitted herein by these respondents.
19. These respondents hereby adopt the counter filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 in the above case. These respondents submits that the complainant has alleged that group of hizras / Korza people / third generation persons entered the coach, while passing through the coach, they high handedly stolen the petitioner’s laptop, when the train was about to start and hence, he was not in position to resist the high handed activities of those persons. Thus these respondents humbly submit that the complainant himself has admitted that his laptop was stolen at Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station on 18-12-2013. Thus this railway has no role to play in the case and hence, these respondents 5 & 6 are not necessary parties to the petition.
20. There is no any deficiency of service on the part of these respondents and there is no any negligence on the part of the respondents in rendering the service to the complainant. The other allegations which are contrary to the contention of these respondents are all false and invented for the purpose of the complaint by the complainant. This complaint is highly speculative and there are no bonafidies in the complaint and it is false one.
21. Therefore, these respondents humbly pray that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs in the interest of justice.
22. Respondent No. 3 called absent and set exparte on 12-01-2015.
23. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation or not?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents or not?
- To what relief?
24. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A8 were marked and on behalf of respondent No. 2 Exs. B1 and B2 were marked.
25. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is very clear from the complaint that the complainant had lost his laptop at Hazarath Nizamuddin Railway Station on 8-12-2013. As seen from the complaint the complainant is a student. As per Ex. B1 it is very clear evidence to prove the theft of laptop by hizaras along with its bag valued at Rs. 36,500/-. The complainant had booked a ticket to A.P. Samparkranti express on 8-12-2013 in S7 coach, seat number 64 was allotted to him. It shows that it was a reserved ticket. As per complaint of the complainant the Hizaras high handedly stolen laptop of the complainant. In general at all the railway stations and all the trains we saw hangama of hizaras and there is no control by the railway authorities on the hizaras. In every train, the hizaras made Galatas and the people always afraid of the hizaras in the trains. The passengers got paid the amount for ticket and reserved their seats it is the bounded duty of the railway authorities and the railway police to safeguard the passengers in the railway stations and trains, while the passengers are in their journey. But the Railway people are not taking any precautions or any action to avoid the hizaras in railway stations and trains. Somany people are suffering with the activities of the hizaras. Being the student, the complainant will have much mental agony and suffering by the activity of the hizaras at Hajarath Nizamuddin Railway Station, New Delhi. At the same time nobody including T.C. of the train and other police stations come forward to register the complaint of the stolen laptop of the complainant. It clearly shows negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents 1 to 6. When the passengers reserved their tickets and travelling in the train it is the bounded duty of the Railway authorities to safeguard their rights and their belongings. The price difference between the unreserved ticket and a reserved tickets is quite high and the travelling public who buy a reserved ticket would expect that they can enjoy the train journey with a certain minimum amount of security and safety. It is the duty of the TTE to ensure that no intruders enter into the reserved compartment. Here it clearly shows that the TTE and other railway authorities had failed to do the same. As seen from all the averments and evidence on record filed by the complainant it is very clear that there is deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the respondents 1 to 6. Under these circumstances the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him.
26. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents 1 to 6 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 36,500/- (Rupees thirty six thousand five hundred only) cost of lap top, to the complainant, pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency of service, pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony and pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of the complaint to the complainant, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 6th October 2015.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex.A1 P/c of letter issued by concerned railway authorities dated 11-12-2013.
Ex.A2 P/c of postal receipts dt.12-12-2013.
Ex.A3 P/c of served acknowledgements.
Ex.A4 P/c of F.I.R. dated.19-01-2014.
Ex.A5 P/c of laptop bill dated. 09-02-2013.
Ex.A6 P/c of Un served letter to Nizamuddin railway station authorities.
Ex.A7 Office copy of the legal notice dt.22-05-2014.
Ex.A8 P/c of postal receipt dt.22-05-2014.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 :–
Ex. B1 P/c of zero FIR No. 51/2014.
Ex. B2 P/c of receiving slip Jhonisi GRP.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri D.V.S. Prasad, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for respondents.
- The Sub-inspector of Railway Police Station /
Station House Officer, Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway
Police Station, Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, New Delhi.
- The Sub inspector of Railway Police Station /
Station House Officer, Jhansi Railway police Station,
Jhansi Railway Station, Uttar Pradesh.
B.V.P.
