SOUTHERN EASTERN RAILWAY Vs. KU.BHARATI ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are South Eastern Railway, Calcutta and Central Railway, Mumbai through their General Managers. The respondent Km. Bharati Arora, who is the original complainant in the District Forum, Bhopal filed this complaint for deficiency in service for theft and loss of suitcase from the reserved berth from Coach No. S -9 of the Train No. 8254 and the District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the petitioners to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/ - and Rs. 500/ - as costs of the proceedings. The petitioners/Railways aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, filed an Appeal No. 1524/2002 in the State Commission whereas the complainant Ms. Bharti Arora also dissatisfied with the order filed an Appeal No. 1378/2002 for enhancement of compensation from Rs. 10,000/ - to Rs. 50,000/ - the amount originally prayed for in the complaint. The learned State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and allow the complainants appeal by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 10,000/ - to Rs. 12,400/ - and also gave cost of Rs. 1,000/ - to be paid within 2 months or else the amount Rs. 12,400/ - would attract interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the order which is 21.4.2003.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are :

(3.) THE petitioners contended here and in both the Fora below on the following grounds, (a) that the Bhopal District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as according to the version of the complainant the suitcase was stolen by the miscreants or unauthorised persons at Katni Railway Station; (b) that the complainant was provided two berths in Coach S -7 and that the complainant ought not to have travelled in Coach S -9 as Section 53 of Railways Act, 1989 prohibits transfer of certain tickets; (c) that the liability of loss due to destruction, damage deterioration or non -delivery of any luggage Railways cannot be held responsible under Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 and lastly, that the compensation that was given by the District Forum and then further enhanced by the State Commission was not based on any evidence and both the Fora awarded compensation without giving adequate reasons. It is further argued that a detailed inquiry is required to assess the actual loss, if any, and that it involves complicated question of facts which can only be tried by Civil Court and that the Consumer Forum does not have the jurisdiction to try the present complaint