UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANJIV DILSUKHRAI DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is preferred by the petitioner, Western Railways, against the order dated 13th July, 1999 passed by the State Commission, Gujarat, in Appeal No. 410/1996 arising out of the Complaint No. 81/1993. The District Forum had directed the opposite party/petitioner to pay Rs. 15,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and costs to the present respondent, which, on appeal was upheld by the State Commission. The brief facts of the case :

(2.) THE word 'luggage' has been defined in the Railways Act. The 'responsibility of the Railways to carry the luggage' is also defined in the said Act. Since the luggage was not booked with Railways and this is not entrusted to the Railways, the Railways is not liable to pay. The final contention of the petitioner is that the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint relating to loss, damages, destruction of goods carried by trains, in view of Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The respondents challenged each of these arguments and relied extensively on the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the case law under the Consumer Protection Act. The main issues for decisions, therefore, are : (i) Whether the claim of the respondents under the Consumer Protection Act is barred because of Section 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 ? and (ii) Whether there is negligence on the part of the Railway Administration in providing measures whereby removal of luggage by an intruder became possible ? As regards the first issue, the respondents relied on the judgment of this Commission in the case of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railways and Anr. v. Dr. K.K. Sharma and Ors., III (2000) CPJ page 1 (NC). The gist of the judgment is that "existence of remedy provided by Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 did not take away the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts to decide the question of deficiency in service. The Consumer Courts cannot sub-plant the jurisdiction the Railway Tribunals or any other judicial or quasi-judicial body but can supplement the jurisdiction of these bodies in appropriate cases. It provides an additional remedy to a consumer". Under the Railways Act, 1989, "goods" and "luggage" are two different things defined separately under Clauses (19) and (23) respectively of Section 2 of the said Act. A plain reading of these clauses show that the word "luggage" means baggage carrying personal belongings of passengers. Further "luggage" can be either carried by passenger himself or entrust to the Railway Administration for carriage. "Goods" means containers, pallets or some articles of transport to consolidate goods and animals. It appears that "goods" connotes material in the nature of merchandise and does not include personal effects or provisions under Section 13(1)(a) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to try disputes relating to the responsibility of Railway Administration as carrier in respect of claims of compensation for loss, destruction, damage or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to the Railway Administration carried by Railways. The words used by the Legislature in Section 13(i)(a)(i) are "goods" and has expressly and specifically included "luggage". Thus, under the above sections, the Railway Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to try and entertain the claim for loss etc. only of "goods entrusted" to Railway Administration for carriage by the Railways.

(3.) HE shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach, guide them to their berths/seats and prevent unauthorised persons from the coach. He shall in particular ensure that persons holding platform tickets, who came to see off or receive passengers do not enter the coach. 14. He shall ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move and open them up for passengers as and when required. 16. He shall ensure that the end doors of vestibuled trains are kept locked between 22.00 and 6.00 hrs. to prevent outsiders entering the coach. 17. He shall remain vigilant particularly during night time and ensure that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorised persons do not enter the coach." The above duties clearly show that there is a responsibility cast on the TTE attached to the second class sleeper coach to be very vigilant about anyone other than the reserved tickets holders entering the compartment, to such an extent that he is required to prevent even a relation of the passenger holding a platform ticket who comes to see off a passenger from entering a coach. The TTE is particularly required to take special care in the night as brought out in Sl. Nos. 16 and 17. Sl. No. 14 clearly casts a responsibility on him to ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move. In the case before us, it is the contention of the respondent that the intruder came when the train was on the move in the night and this has not been seriously challenged. Admittedly, the TTE has failed in the performance of his duties which lead to the incident of theft. The arguments of the petitioner that the rules nowhere provide that there should be a TTE for each sleeper coach cannot be accepted because, then, the impressive list of duties which would remain only on the paper, since they cannot be effectively enforced. This Commission has held in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Manoj H. Pathak, reported as II (1996) CPJ 31 (NC), as under : "It is not in dispute that the complainant had hired services of Railway Administration for consideration and if there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration, then it is a consumer dispute within the scope and ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.