JAGANNATH MOHAN SHINDE Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed by the original complainant and the original opponents respectively against the judgment and order dated 22-3-2001, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad in complaint No. 54/1999.

(2.) The appellant original complainant's in appeal No. 620/2001 case before the Forum is that, he along with his wife and daughter had gone to Mumbai and he was returning from Mumbai to Aurangabad in the night of 21-1-1997. It is contended that, he had reserved 3 berth tickets Bearing Nos. 57, 58 and 59 in Bogy No. S-4. It is contended that, one V. I. P. bag containing Ornaments and cash was tied by means of chain with the lower berth rod. It is contended that, when the train had come to Nasik Road station, wife of the complainant found that, ticket checker had allowed one person to enter in the compartment. The said person was sleeping in the passage between lower berths. It is contended that, when the train arrived at aurangabad station, the complainant and his wife found that, the V. I. P. bag which was tied with the lower berth road by chain was lying un-tied. It is contended that, the complainant and his daughter went to the house and opened the suitcase and found that, gold ornaments and cash, total amounting to Rs. 1,31, 000/- were stolen away from the bag. It is contended that, the complainant had narrated the incident orally to the police out post at Aurangabad, which was recorded by the police. The same is brought on record, which was registered as 3/1997 by the police. It is contended that, the complainant had submitted written complaint before the police Sub-Inspector of Railway on 25-1 -1997 and also forwarded an application to the railway Police higher authorities in this regard, however after investigation, the complainant was informed by the Commissioner of Police (Railway) on 27-6-1997 that, the offender is not detected and the investigation is stopped by keeping matter pending. The complainant issued notice and demanded the amount of loss sustained by him and then approached the Forum.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the original opponents. It is contended that, the complaint is barred by limitation. It is denied that, the ticket checker allowed the unknown passenger in the compartment. It is also denied that, unknown passenger was sleeping between two panels of the berth. It is contended that, complaint was filed by the complainant before the Railway Inspector on 25-1-1997 i. e. after 3 days. It is further contended that, under section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, the railway administration is not responsible for the loss, destruction and damage to the luggage of the person. It is also denied that, theft has taken place. The Original Opponent No. 3 who was ticket checker in the bogy in question has also filed say and denied all contentions.