GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY Vs. MRS A SHAMEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition No. 1205 of 2000 arises out of the order passed by the State Commission, Kerala, dismissing the Appeal No. 144 of 2000 filed by the petitioner, the General Manager, Southern Railway and others against the order of the District Forum which had allowed the complaint. Brief facts of the case are, that the complainant is a Lecturer in English in T.K.N. College of Arts and Science, Kollam and Research Scholar, Ph.D. in English. The complainant, M/s. A. Shameem, travelled in the Express Train No. 7029 on 6.11.1998 to Hyderabad from Kollam. Although she was booked with reservation in Coach No. 54 on that day, the TTE directed her to Coach No. 53. Along with the co-traveller, Annamma Oomen she boarded the Coach No. 53 and the train started at 9.00 a.m. from Kollam. She was carrying a suitcase having study material including 35 bibliographic cards and an amount of Rs. 5,800/-. At about 9.00 p.m., a lady intruded into the compartment and other passengers protested and brought the same to the notice of the TTA, but he did not do anything. She contended that at 9.45 p.m., she and her fellow passengers went to sleep in their respective berths and woke up at 2.20 a.m. as the train reached Renigunta. To her surprise, she found that her suitcase was lying open at lavatory door of the compartment and the study materials were thrown out within and outside the compartment. She found that the said lady was missing and on verifying the suitcase the 35 bibliographic cards, study material and that hand-bag containing Rs. 5,800/- were missing. She pulled the alarm chain but the train did not stop. Then she tried to give written complaint to the TTA and the Guard who were not willing to receive. When the train reached Secunderabad, she submitted a written complaint before the S.I. of Police who registered a case of Crime No. 237/1998 under Section 379, IPC. She alleged that the loss and agony of the episode of theft occurred in the circumstances stated were purely due to the negligence of the employees of the opposite party and, therefore, prayed for a direction for the opposite party to pay her Rs. 1 lakh as compensation. The opposite parties maintained that she is not a consumer and that stranger entering the said coach was not true and is not proved and as per the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 complainant is not eligible for any compensation and prayed for dismissal of complaint. The District Forum has gone into all these various facts and examined the evidence of the complainant and also of her co-passengers and all the other affidavits which were produced to and relied on her contentions. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence. District Forum appreciated the evidence led by the complainant and found opposite party to be deficient in their services and directed them to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation along with Rs. 1,000/- as costs. This was challenged by the opposite party in the State Commission. In the State Commission also all these documents were relied on and the State Commission went into the merits as to whether she was a consumer or not. They returned the finding that she is a consumer and the complainant was successful in establishing the negligence of opposite party and consequently the view taken by the District Forum was upheld and the appeal of the opposite parties was set aside. Opposite party has come in revision before us.

(2.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the same grounds have been again raised before us, as in the State Commission and the District Forum. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the State Commission had not considered Section 97 read with Section 100 of the Railways Act wherein the liability by the petitioner is limited to the extent as stipulated and further stated that there is no privity of contract between the parties as to attract the provisions of this Act. It is further contended that enough evidence was not led as per the contents of luggage that was carried by the complainant/respondent and the compensation was on higher side. They vehemently denied the contention of the respondent that the chain was pulled and that as to whether it was in working condition or not was not established by any evidence.

(3.) The petitioner raised many issues such as to whether the respondent's reservation was in the compartment No. 54 or 53; (2) whether the evidence led by the respondent is to be believed or not regarding the ticketless passenger barging into the compartment; (3) Whether TTE ignored to receive the complaint from her and her co-passenger; (4) whether to believe the evidence of the respondent regarding the theft of the valuable articles as narrated without any corroboration; and (5) whether it is the duty of the railways under Section 100 to guard the luggage or not; and lastly (6) whether the compensation awarded is justified in absence of evidence and in view of the provision laid in the Railways Act.