Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

A/32/2022

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

Acts

SECTION 100 RAILWAYS ACT 1989

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Case Summary: State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh — Appeal No. 32 of 2022

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent/complainant, Seema Arora, booked advance AC-II Tier railway tickets (annexed as An.C-1 & C-2) from the Railway Reservation Counter at High Court, Chandigarh on 27.07.2017 for a journey on 27.8.2017 (with return on a date shown in the order). During the journey, on 28.08.2017 at around 6:00 a.m., the train suddenly stopped and a theft occurred in which the complainant's luggage (including essential medicines) was stolen. The complainant lodged an FIR with the Railway Police (Ann.C-3) and filed a consumer complaint alleging loss of valuables and essential medicines and negligence on the part of railway officials.

The opposite party (Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Division, Northern Railways — now appellant) filed a written reply denying negligence and contending that the railways are not liable for unbooked luggage as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, that passengers are responsible for their own luggage, and that adequate security (TTE and guard) was available. The parties led evidence. On the date of arguments before the District Commission, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite parties; the District Commission heard the complainant's counsel and allowed the complaint by order dated 02.02.2022, directing reimbursement of Rs.35,000 and payment of Rs.15,000 as compensation and litigation expenses, with additional consequences if not complied with.

The appellant filed this appeal against the District Commission's order. The State Commission heard counsel for the appellant at the preliminary stage, reviewed the record, and delivered its decision on 22.04.2022.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellant (Railways) could be held responsible for the theft of the respondent's belongings which took place on the train on 28.08.2017.
Whether the District Commission at Chandigarh had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint where the tickets were purchased at the High Court, Chandigarh reservation counter.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent / Complainant's Arguments

The respondent alleged that her luggage was stolen on 28.08.2017 after the train suddenly stopped at around 6:00 a.m., and that she lost valuables and essential medicines required for treatment of a medical condition described in the order as "Aclasia Cardia".
She alleged that the theft occurred due to lapse/negligence on the part of railway officials (guard and TTE), causing her loss, mental agony and hardship.
She lodged an FIR with the Railway Police and relied on the materials on record and evidence to support her complaint.

Opposite Party / Appellant (Railways) Arguments

The railways contended that the alleged theft did not occur due to negligence or deficiency of the railways but due to carelessness of the complainant.
It was asserted that there was a provision to lock goods under the berth and that passengers are responsible for their own luggage; railways is responsible for booked luggage only.
Reliance was placed on Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 to argue non-liability for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of unbooked luggage.
The railways also stated that the train had adequate security/guard and the TTE was available in the coach and that no complaint was lodged with the TTE in the complaint book.
The railways argued it could not be made responsible for unbooked luggage which was not brought to its notice.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Spicejet Ltd. v. Ranju Aery, 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 739: (2017) 1 CPJ 546	The principle that a consumer can file a complaint within the territory where he/she purchased tickets (including where purchased via internet).	The Commission relied on this ratio to reject the appellant's objection regarding territorial jurisdiction and to hold that the District Commission at Chandigarh had jurisdiction because the tickets were purchased at the High Court, Chandigarh reservation counter.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The State Commission framed the central question as whether the appellant could be held responsible for the theft of the respondent's belongings on 28.08.2017. The Commission recorded that the appellant did not negate the fact that a theft had occurred.

The appellant's principal contention — that it is liable only for booked luggage and not for unbooked luggage under Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 — was considered and rejected by the Commission for reasons recorded in the order:

The Commission noted that passengers travelling in reserved compartments (such as AC-II Tier) reasonably expect protection and that such compartments are provided with security/guard and a TTE to ensure only bona fide passengers enter.
The duties of TTE/train conductors and escorting staff/guard (as extracted from the duty lists in the paper book) include preventing entry of unauthorized persons, keeping corridors and areas near bathrooms free from obstructions, and keeping watch on the corridor during night time. The Commission relied on these duties to assess the expected standard of vigilance.
Despite the presence of guard and TTE, the theft occurred. The complainant's pleading that the train suddenly stopped at around 6:00 a.m. and there was hue and cry in the compartment was not denied by the appellant. The absence of any denial as to the train stopping was given significance by the Commission.
Given the undisputed fact of the train stopping suddenly and the appellant's failure to justify why the incident occurred, the Commission found that there was gross negligence and deficiency in service by the guard and TTE for failing to remain vigilant and preventing entry of unauthorized persons, which resulted in the theft.
The appellant failed to establish that the theft occurred due to the complainant's negligence (for example, theft by fellow passengers) particularly in light of the sudden stop at 6:00 a.m. and lack of explanation from the appellant.
The Commission took into account that the complainant lost essential medicines for a medical condition ("Aclasia Cardia"), which aggravated the consequences of the theft and caused mental agony and harassment.
The Commission characterized the situation as a breach of the common duty of reasonable care incumbent upon carriers, including the Railways, and found that the omission by railway officials was not wholly unforeseen or beyond their control. Accordingly, the appellant could not escape liability by citing responsibility only for booked luggage.
On territorial jurisdiction, the Commission applied the cited precedent (Spicejet Ltd. v. Ranju Aery) to hold that the District Commission at Chandigarh had competence because the tickets were purchased there.

Based on the above analysis, the State Commission concluded that the District Commission's order was based on correct appreciation of evidence and law and did not warrant interference.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The State Commission affirmed the District Commission's order and therefore DISMISSED the appeal. The Commission held that the appellant (Railways) was liable for deficiency in service that resulted in theft of the complainant's luggage.

Immediate consequences and orders:

The impugned order of the District Commission (which had allowed the complaint and directed reimbursement of Rs.35,000 and payment of Rs.15,000 towards compensation and litigation expenses, with additional sanctions in case of non-compliance) was upheld.
The appeal was dismissed at the preliminary stage as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.
The appellant's application for stay of the impugned order was also dismissed with no order as to costs.
Certified copies of the order were directed to be sent to the parties free of charge and the file was to be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Implications beyond the parties: The Commission's decision rested on application of established duties of railway staff and the principle that carriers owe a common duty of reasonable care. The opinion did not purport to lay down a novel legal precedent beyond applying the law and the cited authority on territorial jurisdiction; no new broader legal principle was announced in this order.

Show full summary ...

Divisional Railway Manager, v. Seema Arora

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.		32 of 2022
Date of Institution		29.03.2022
Date of Decision		22.04.2022

Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Division, Northern Railways, Ambala through its Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala.

……Appellant/opposite party

V e r s u s

Seema Arora W/o Sh.Ravi Arora, R/o House No.5832, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.. …..Respondent/complainant

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

Present:- Sh.Satinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party, as it is aggrieved of the order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.788 of 2019, filed by the respondent/ complainant was allowed in the following manner:-

"…..Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, the complaint stands allowed against OPs with direction to reimburse the loss suffered by the complainant, which we quantify to the tune of Rs.35,000/-. The OPs are also to pay a compository amount of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional compensation cost of Rs.10000/- apart from above relief..."

2. The facts of the consumer complaint, as narrated in the impugned order, are given hereunder:-

"….the complainant, on 27.7.2017, booked advance Railway ticket for AC-II Tier from Railway Reservation Counter, at High court, Chandigarh for the journey to be undertaken on 27.8.2017 from Chandigarh to Shirdi and return on 2.89.2017 from Shirdi to Chandigarh (An.C-1 & C-2). It is averred that the complainant along with her luggage of 1 bag and 5 other colleagues boarded the Train from Chandigarh Berth No.14 Coach No.A-1. It is also averred that the train reached at New Delhi Railway Station at 11.00 PM and the complainant took her dinner and thereafter slept at around 1.00 AM and on 28.8.2017 at around 6.00 AM, the train suddenly stopped and it came to know that a theft took place in the train and luggage of various passengers got stolen. It is stated that the complainant when checked her luggage the same was also not found anywhere in the train. The complainant lodged police complaint with Railway Police who lodged FIR to that effect (Ann.C-3). It is submitted that due to said theft, the complainant was left with mobile and a pair of slippers only. It is also submitted that the complainant is suffering from disease "Aclasia Cardia" which affects the food pipe and disrupt the functioning of intake any kind food and is taking treatment from PGI, Chandigarh for the last so many years and the medicine prescribed by the PGI, Chandigarh helps the complainant to have intake of food smoothly. Stated further that without proper medicines, the complainant has to face a lot of difficulty to intake any food or liquid and digest. It is pleaded that due to theft of her luggage from the train, the complainant not only suffer loss of her valuables but also essential medicines without which she was just handicapped and had to go through a stage of starvation without her fault. It is also pleaded that the theft of her luggage has occurred due to lapse on the part of Officials of OP...…"

3. Opposite parties (now appellant before this Commission) filed written reply, which was noted down by the District Commission in the order impugned as under:-

"…….the alleged theft which has not occurred due to the negligence or deficiency of the railways, rather it is the carelessness and negligence of the complainant. It is denied that there was no provision to lock the goods under their berth in the compartment. It is stated that the railway authorities always displays on the Time Table Board, Railway Coaches, Platforms, Reservation Centre that the passenger is himself responsible for its own luggage. It is submitted that the railways is responsible for booked luggage only. It is also submitted that the train was having adequate security/guard and the TTE was duly available in the Coach. It is stated that the complainant has not lodged any complaint in the complaint book with the TTE. It is pleaded that as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, railways is not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of unbooked luggage. It is also pleaded that the responsibility of the railways in case of loss etc. of the luggage being carried by the passenger in his charge on the basis of proven negligence or mis-conduct on the part of railway applies only in case of booked luggage. It is further pleaded that it has never been brought to the notice of Railways that the complainant was actually carrying the said belongings (Ann.OP-1) and thus, the railways cannot be made responsible for unbooked luggage which was not even in its knowledge…."

4. In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated the averments contained in her complaint and controverted those of the opposite parties.

5. The parties led evidence in support of their case before the District Commission. On the date of arguments, none put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties, as a result whereof, the District Commission after hearing Counsel for the complainant and going through the material available on record allowed the complaint, against the appellant, in the manner stated above.

6. Hence this appeal.

7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant at the preliminary stage and have also gone through the entire material available on the record.

8. The only moot question which needs to be adjudicated by this Commission is, as to whether, the appellant could be held responsible for the theft of belongings of the respondent, which took place in the train on 28.08.2017 or not. It may be stated here that we have gone through the entire record and found that the appellant has not negated the fact that theft took place in the said train. However, the main contention raised by the appellant, through its Counsel, at the time of arguments before this Commission is that it is responsible for taking care of the booked luggage only and that as per Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, it is not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of unbooked luggage. We do not agree with the contention raised for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

It may be stated here that we are aware of the fact that while travelling in train, the passengers are allowed to carry luggage with certain permissible weight, containing personal belongings etc. alongwith them in train compartments. Mostly, the passengers with a view to have a safe and hassle free journey, prefer to travel in reserved compartments, with the hope that the Railways ensure that only bonafide passengers enter the compartment. The respondent was travelling in AC-II Tier compartment, with a hope that she and her luggage will be taken care of, as the said compartment is provided with adequate security/guard and a TTE. It is evident from the document (Duty List of Train Conductors in 1AC, 2 AC, 3 AC and First Class) at page 46 of the paper book that over and above other the duties mentioned at para nos.1 to 10-14 to 22, the TTE/Train Conductors shall:-

11.

12.

13.

Similarly, it is evident from the list of duties of escorting staff/guard at page 49 of the paper book, that over and above other duties mentioned therein, he is duty bound to prevent entry of beggars, hawkers, unauthorized passengers and heavy luggage inside the coach, especially in the corridors and to keep the corridor and space near bathrooms free from obstructions; and that to keep watch on the corridor of the coach from the Attendant Seat during night time.

However, in the present case, even in the presence of guard and TTE, theft of luggage of the respondent took place. It is significant to mention here that in her complaint in para no.5, it has been specifically pleaded by the respondent-complainant that on 28.08.2017 at around 6.00 a.m. the train suddenly stopped; that she heard hue and cry in the compartment; that she found that the passengers were arguing with the attendant of the compartment; and that thereafter she found that her luggage has also been stolen. In reply to this para, the appellant did not deny the fact that the train was suddenly stopped at around

6.00 a.m. on 28.08.2017. Thus, in the absence of any denial to the fact that the train was suddenly stopped at

6.00 a.m., the appellant has failed to convince this Commission as why such an incident took place on 28.08.2017. Under these circumstances, it can easily be said that it was on account of gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the guard and TTE as they failed to remain vigilant particularly during the night time, to prevent entry of unauthorized persons/intruders in the compartment, which resulted into theft of luggage of the respondent and thereafter, they vanished after stopping the train, might be by pulling its chain.

At the same time, the appellant has failed to prove its case to the effect that it was on account of negligence and carelessness on the part of the respondent that her luggage was stolen by some other passengers sitting in the compartment, especially, on the face of the undisputed fact that the train was suddenly stopped by someone at 6.00 a.m. on 28.08.2017, for which no justification has been given by the appellant. One can well imagine the plight of the respondent-Seema Arora, who was suffering from a disease "Aclasia Cardia" for which she was required to take regular medicines as prescribed by the doctors but on account of the said theft of her luggage which included her medicines also, she faced a lot of difficulty. Thus, she did not only suffer the loss of her valuables but also essential medicines, which fact has definitely caused her mental agony & harassment.

As such, it is a case of breach of common duty of reasonable care, which lies upon all carriers including the Railways. It is not a case where the omission on the part of the Railway officials can be said to be wholly unforeseen or beyond their control. Under these circumstances, the appellant cannot wriggle out from its liability, on the ground that it was responsible for taking care of booked luggage only and not of the unbooked luggage. The appellant was thus deficient in providing proper service to the respondent, which resulted into the theft of her luggage in the manner referred to above. The District Commission was also right in holding so.

9. As far as objection regarding territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it may be stated here that it is an admitted fact that the tickets in question for the said journey was purchased by the respondent from Railway Reservation Counter, at High Court, Chandigarh, on 27.07.2017, as such, the District Commission at Chandigarh was having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint in view of ratio of judgment- Spicejet Ltd. v. Ranju Aery, 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 739: (2017) 1 CPJ 546, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld the findings of the Hon'ble National Commission to the effect that a consumer can file a complaint within the territory, where he/she has purchased tickets for journey, even through internet also. As such, objection taken in this regard stands rejected.

10. In our considered opinion, the order impugned passed by the District Commission, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission and the same stands upheld. Resultantly, this appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the preliminary stage with no order as to cost.

11. Consequently, the application filed by the appellant seeking stay of the order impugned also stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

12. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13. The concerned file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced

22.04.2022

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Rg.

Divisional Railway Manager, v. Seema Arora

Case Summary: State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh — Appeal No. 32 of 2022

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent / Complainant's Arguments

Opposite Party / Appellant (Railways) Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Divisional Railway Manager, v. Seema Arora

Comments