AMAL KUMAR GHOSH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 30.9.10 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit -II, in Case No. CDF/Unit -II/C.C.No. 405 of 2009 wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the petition of complaint on contest without any order as to cost.

(2.) THE case of the Appellant/Complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that on 21.10.08 the complainant being accompanied by his wife was returning from Varanasi by availing 2334 -Dn Bibhuti Express. The complainant was the bonafide passenger having purchased valid tickets for the journey. According to the complainant, after boarding the train the complainant put his suitcase containing valuables including SBI ATM card belonging to his wife with the help of an iron chain underneath the berth occupied by them. It was the further case of the complainant that in the following morning it came to the notice of the complainant that the suitcase containing the valuables etc. as mentioned, was missing as the same was taken away by some miscreants and/or unauthorized persons after breaking the iron chain. Later on it also came to the knowledge of the complainant that some miscreants after using the SBI ATM card so lost during the train journey had siphoned off a substantial amount from the same. According to the complainant, during the aforesaid train journey he noticed that there was no proper security arrangement and attending guards in the compartment in question which, according to the complainant, tantamounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the railway administration, for which the complainant has suffered huge amount of financial loss and hence, the petition of complaint.

(3.) THE Respondent/Railways contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the petition of complaint does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the absence of any deficiency in service at the instance of the railway administration the case was not maintainable. According to the Railways, the complainant has not produced any cogent and reliable evidence in support of his allegation that during transit of railway journey the theft/misappropriation of the articles of the complainant was committed and that the articles so alleged to have been stolen were actually in the possession of the complainant and that the petition of complaint having been filed after lapse of a considerable period the same is not believable and/or acceptable and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.