WESTERN RAILWAY Vs. MEENU CHHAZED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 03/11/2010 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in consumer complaint no. 898/2009. Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under: - On 12/10/2009, the complainant/respondent was travelling by Avantika Express in AC -3 Tier compartment from Borivali to Indore. It is contended by the complainant that around 11.00 p.m. on that day the train reached to Surat station and complainant got awake and noticed that her purse containing train ticket, PAN card, cash and jewellery were missing. She raised an alarm and other passengers also came to her and she narrated the incidence to the fellow passengers and she tried to find out the attendant and TC. However, both were not present in the compartment. After some time Ticket checker Mr. Pawar came to the compartment and she explained the incidence to him. Mr. Pawar explained to her that Railway police will be available only at next station i.e. Bharuch. However, at Bharuch station there was neither attendant nor the ticket checker -Mr. Pawar. Two Railway police came to the compartment. However, they refused to take FIR of the complainant and told her that she should have got down at Surat itself and lodged the FIR. When the complainant insisted, the complaint was recorded, however, the offence was not registered and a copy thereof was not given to the complainant. The complainant claimed that the theft of her belongings occurred due to the railway employees because they were so negligent in keeping vigil on the entry of the outsiders. The complainant made allegations against the Railway police for not recording the FIR, not furnishing her a copy of FIR. Hence she filed consumer complaint praying that the opponent be directed to pay her the price for loss of cell phone, loss of jewellery, cash, mental agony and legal expenses Rs. 97,626/ -.

(2.) THE opponent resisted the complaint by filing written version contending that it is not responsible for loss of luggage and referred Section 100 of the Railways Act which pertains to the responsibility of Railway department as a carrier of luggage. The opponent contended that since the complainant has not booked her luggage, the opponent is not responsible for loss of the articles. They further contended that they do not have control on the Railway police and hence they are not concerned about the allegations against the police. They further contended that the attendant and ticket checker were not negligent in the duty and denied the allegations of the complainant that the ticket checker and attendant have not attended the complainant.

(3.) WE heard Ld. counsel Mr. Sanjay Bhosale for the appellant and Mr. Nitin Chhazed -A.R. of the respondent.