NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 3047 OF 2017

(Against the Order dated 23/08/2017 in Appeal No. 572/2017 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. STATION SUPERINTENDENT, NORTH WESTERN
RAILWAY & 3 ORS.
Shri Ganga Nagar
Rajasthan
2. DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER,
North Western Railway,
Bikaner
3. SR. DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
R.P.F.,
Ambala
4. GENERAL MANAGER
Chief Security Commissioner, Baroda House,
New Delhi ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. JASMIN MANN
W/o. Sh. R.S. Mann, C/o. 56 A.P.O. Lalgarh Jatan
Chhavani,
Shri Ganga Nagar - 335 001
Rajasthan ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner : MR. SANJEEV KUMAR VERMA

For the Respondent :

Dated : 15 Dec 2017

ORDER

REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 23.08.2017 of
the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Bikaner, (‘the
State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 572 of 2017.

-1-
2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioners/ opposite parties are that on 08.02.2011, the
respondent/ complainant was going from Delhi Sarai Rohilla to Ganganagar in Coach no. A 1,
seat no. 9 of AC 2 tier train run by the petitioners. The cost of the train ticket was Rs.498/-. The
said train left at 10.50 p m in the night and reached Ganganagar in the morning. In the night the
respondent was sleeping on the lower berth she had wrapped her hand bag in her hand and kept
the same on her chest covered with the quilt. Some unknown person had tried to snatch the purse
wrapped in her hand forcibly. The respondent tried to resist/ stop the unknown person from
pulling the purse and she was dragged up to the door. Due to this tussle the respondent suffered
injury to the middle finger of her right hand. The chain purse then broke and the said unknown
person succeeded in snatching her purse. The respondent made a hue and cry. In the meanwhile,
the person who had snatched the purse got down from the train as the train was running at a very
slow speed. The respondent lost Rs.6,000/- in cash, two pairs of diamond Jhumka worth
Rs.2,00,000/-, a ruby necklace of Rs.7,000/- and one necklace of Rs.17,000/- were also stolen.
Articles of another passenger Kavita Sethi were also stolen. Report of theft was given to the coach
attendant immediately but he did not take any action. The gate of the air-conditioned coach was
open. The coach attendant has committed negligence in his duty due to which the said unknown
person entered into the reserved coach and the incident of theft occurred. When the train reached
at Sangrur platform, she got registered an FIR of the said incident at about 05.00 am in the
morning of 09.02.2011. No action had been taken so far. Later on her husband told that some of
her documents had been found safe, her jewellery etc., has not been found.

3. The petitioners/ opposite parties contested the complaint and stated that the case can be tried
only in a Railway Tribunal. The District Forum had no jurisdiction to hear the case. Further, the
area in which the incident had taken place falls in the State of Haryana. The petitioners had
admitted that the complainant was travelling in the said train and they further stated that the coach
assistant had not committed any negligence and had complied with his duties. It has also been
stated that no complaint was made at the spot. Hence, the petitioners prayed for dismissal of the
complaint.

4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) vide its order
dated 21.06.2017 while allowing the complaint observed as under:

“6. On the basis of the material available on the file, this is the admitted position that on
08.02.2011 the complainant was travelling on a reserved seat in Coach no. A 1 of Air
conditioned train no. 12455 for coming to Sriganganagar from Delhi Sarai Rohilla. The
parties have also not any dispute on this fact that during the journey, on theft of goods of
complainant, the complainant has got registered an FIR with GRP Police Station Sangrur
and till date the police has not recovered all the stolen of the complainant and has been
returned to her. The parties has also no dispute on this fact that the goods of the
complainant had been stolen by some unknown person during the night from air
conditioned Coach no. A 1, during the mid-night. The non-applicant has drawn the
attention of the Forum to Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989 and has argued that the
goods which has been stated by the complainant stolen, the same was in her custody and
possession and due to not having any negligence or careless of non-applicant Railway
Department, no deficiency of service or liability of the non-applicant can be accepted.
Considering the above arguments advance by the non-applicant doing with all the
material available on the file, it is clear that incident of theft in this case has occurred due
to the careless and negligence of the non-applicant. This fact is admitted by the
non-applicant that the attendant of the coach remains in the reserved air conditioned

-2-
 coach and at the time of taking the journey by the complainant, attendant and conductor
were present in the said coach. The legal position is that it was the duty of the attendant
and the conductor in the coach, that no unwanted or unauthorised persons enter in the
reserved coach but from the material available on the case file, it is clear that at the time
of journey, some unknown person entered in the coach, has forcibly taken the hand pursue
from the hand of the complainant. The complainant has clarified that she has made a noise
but in the area of place of incident, due to running, the train in slow speed, the thief
jumped and ran away. The complainant has stated that gate of the coach was also open,
this fact has been denied by the non-applicant. From the material available on the file it is
clear that the employee, coach conductor and attendant of the non-applicant Railway
Department has not properly discharged his duty or responsibility. For this reason,
incident of theft has taken place. In such circumstances, committing of deficiency in
service of the non-applicants fully proved.

7. The complainant has stated in her complaint that the time of this incident, goods (suit
case) of another passenger Kavita Sethi was also stolen, during search some of the goods
was found in the fields near the area of theft and passport, debit card, driving licence etc.,
of the complainant were found along with the goods but all the jewellery and cash
contained in the hand purse were not found. Details of all the goods stolen are mentioned
in the FIR made by the complainant. The complainant has also filed the bills of the
jewellery articles. From the material available on the file it is clear that cash amount of
Rs.6,000/- and price of the other jewellery kept in the purse of the complainant, total
goods of Rs.2,30,000/- had been stolen. This has already been clarified that the incident of
theft had occurred due to the deficiency in service of the non-applicant Department. In
such circumstances, it is the liability of the non-applicant to pay Rs.2,30,000/- to her for
the loss suffered by the complainant. It is also worth mentioning that during the journey
undertaken by the complainant, due to the incident of theft, she has to suffer physical and
mental agony and also has to be through the legal process and finally has to file the
complaint before this Forum. In such a situation, it will also be proper to grant cost of the
complaint to the complainant with compensation for mental and physical agony.

8. On the basis of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be
allowed as under:

9. The complaint filed by the complainant against the non-applicants is allowed and is
ordered that non-applicants pay the price of Rs.2,30,000/- of all the stolen jewellery and
cash of the complainants along with 9% simple interest per annum from the date of filing
of complaint, 20.06.2011 till the date of recovery. It is also ordered that for the mental and
physical agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service committed by
the non-applicants pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation along with
Rs.10,000/- cost of the complaint. Compliance of the order be made within one month.”

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District, the petitioners filed an appeal before the State
Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal observed as under:

“Arguments heard and perused the case file.

The complainant was coming to Ganganagar from Delhi, on the way her purse has been
snatched near Sangrur, which containing jewellery and cash. It was AC Coach. It was

-3-
 their duty to protect the passenger and their goods, they have not done and some person
snatched the purse and succeeds in running due to slow speed of train.

The order which has been passed by the District Forum, there is no any error of any kind
therein, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and dismissed.”

6. Hence, the present revision petition.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr Sanjeev Kumar Verma. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has contended that the State Commission had passed a non-speaking
order. Further, he contended that the railways cannot be held liable for the loss of any un-booked
luggage. He argued that as per Clause 146 of Coaching Tariff:

The Responsibility of the railway is as under:

The railway administration hereby gives public notice:

1. That they are not accountable for any articles, unless the same are booked and a receipt for
them is given by their clerk or agent”.

Rule 500 of the Coaching Tariff no. 24 part 1 also provides that “all articles
taken into the carriage are carried at the entire risk of the owners”.

According to Rule 506.2 of the Indian Railway Conference Association

Coaching Tariff no. 25 (Part 1) (Vol.1) under Chapter V under the hearing
“Luggage” the passenger himself is responsible for the safety of his luggage
and the railways authorities cannot be held liable for any loss or damage.

8. He has also stated that no evidence was given that such expensive jewellery was being
carried by the respondent in her bag. Even if she was carrying such expensive jewellery she
should have been more careful and vigilant with her belongings. He further stated that there is no
evidence to show that there was any unauthorised person in the AC Coach and it is possible that it
was stolen by some co-passenger, in which case, the railways cannot be held liable. No further
point was urged.

9. I have gone through the record. It is an admitted fact that the respondent/ complainant was
travelling in AC 2 Tier, A 1 Coach of train no. 12455. Sometime during the midnight, when the
train was between Jakahal and Sangrur Railway Station someone snatched the pursue from the
complainant’s hand forcibly and dragged the respondent up to the gate, as a result of which the
respondent sustained injury in the middle finger and the thief succeeded in snatching the purse.
During this time, the respondent cried loudly and made noise however, as the train was running at
a very slow speed the thief snatched the purse and jumped from the running train. The respondent
immediately informed the attendant on duty in the train and requested him to provide help to the
respondent but the attendant stated that he could not do anything as it was night time. When the
train reached the railway station Sangrur an FIR was lodged at 05.40 AM with the GRP. The
petitioners have admitted these facts and they have also informed that no one was present in the
coach at that time, but they have stated that the respondent/complainant did not make any
complaint at the spot. In fact, in their grounds they have stated that the respondent should have
been more vigilant in safeguarding her valuables.

-4-
10. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission has
given a non-speaking order. A detailed speaking order has been given by the District Forum
which has been affirmed by the State Commission and they have given reasons for doing so. It is
an admitted fact that the coach attendant was present and yet in spite of the noise, hue and cry
raised by the respondent, the attendant did not come to her assistance nor did he help her in
lodging the complaint with the RPF who should have been on board nor did he summon any help
to apprehend the thief. The doors of the coach were also left open. There is no mention by the
learned counsel for the petitioner or in the written statement, whether the petitioner had held any
enquiry to look into the facts and circumstances of the case. They have also not been able to
establish that a co-passenger had committed the theft as nowhere they have stated that after this
incident any co-passenger was found missing from their seat/ berth. The FIR on record supports
all the facts of the case as stated by the complainant as also the fact that the thief jumped of the
running train. In fact some items were strewn at the place where he jumped but the cash and
jewellery were missing.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner to support his case has drawn my attention to the order of
the National Commission in the case of
Union of India and Ors vs Rama Shanker Misra and Anr ., decided on 07.08.2015 (RP no. 4098
of 2014)

“6. We have carefully examined the complaint. There is no averment in the complaint
which would constitute any negligence or misconduct or even deficiency in service on the
part of the Railways or any of its employees. There is no allegation in the complaint that
some unauthorized person was travelling in the compartment in which the suit case of the
complainant was stolen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the railway officials were
negligent in performance of their duties by allowing an unauthorized person to travel in
the coach in which the complainant was travelling. Since there is no allegation that an
unauthorized passenger was travelling in the aforesaid coach the possibility of some
passenger travelling on a reserved ticket stealing the suit case of the complainant and
getting down at a station, cannot be ruled out”.

12. The other citations have also been placed on record to support his case that the respondent
was negligent in taking care of her belongings. The facts, these cases are not relevant or
applicable to this case.

13. The National Commission in their order dated 05.06.2015 titled as General Manager, North
Central Railway, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad vs Dhirendra Kumar Rai and Ors (in RP no.
2343 of 2014) in a similar case has observed as under:

“8. Clause 146 of the Coaching Tariff provides that Railway administration is not
accountable for any articles unless the same are booked and receipt for them is given by
the railway clerk or agent. Rule 500 of the Coaching Tariff No.24 Part I provides that all
articles taken into carriage are carried on the entire risk of the owner and Rule 506 of
Railway Coaching Tariff No.25 provides that passenger himself is responsible for safety of
his luggage and the railway authorities cannot be held liable for any loss or damage.

9. In our considered opinion, the above noted rules are of no avail in view of the
statutory provisions i.e. Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 which reads as under:

-5-
 “100. Responsibility as carrier of luggage

A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage,
deterioration or non – delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the
luggage and given a receipt therefore and in the case of luggage which is carried by the
passenger in his charge, unless it is also provided that the loss, destruction, damage or
deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of
its servants.”

10. On reading of the above, it is clear that Railway administration is not responsible
for loss of luggage carried by the petitioner in his charge unless it is proved that the loss
has occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway administration or
on the part of any of its servants. In the instant case, the complainants have stated that
there were unauthorised occupants in the reserved coach regarding which a complaint
was made to the TTE but the TTE did not take any action to remove unauthorised persons
from the coach. Thus, it is clear that the TTE failed to perform its duty and misconducted
himself by not taking any action to prevent unauthorised persons to travel in the reserved
coach. Therefore, case of the complainants squarely falls within the exception carved out
in the later part of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989. As such, the impugned order of
the foras below cannot be faulted”.

14. In the instant case also, the coach attended was negligent in leaving the door open due to
which an unauthorised person entered into the reserved AC II Tier coach and committed theft.
The passenger was dragged to the door and to protect her purse from the thief, she raised hue and
cry but neither the attendant nor the TTE or the RPF came to her rescue. There is no justification
for the door of the coach was being left opened while the train was running between two stations.

15. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in
the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, Revision
petition is accordingly dismissed.

......................
REKHA GUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER

-6-