D V NAGPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against order dated 30.4.2003 passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/513/2003-entitled Shri D. V. Nagpal V/s. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and Others.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant Shri D. V. Nagpal had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act averring therein that the appellant on 1.9.2001 had purchased a journey-cum-reservation ticket at Dhanbad for performing journey from Dhanbad to Amritsar on 4.9.2001 by Train No.3387-Ganga Sutlej Express. It was stated that on 4.9.2001, the appellant boarded the train at 10.15 p. m. at Dhanbad for going to Amritsar. It was stated that the appellant occupied berth No.49 in Coach No. S-5 in the above said train. It was stated that after boarding the train, the appellant had put his suitcase beneath the berth allotted to him and fastened the same with a chain and locked the suitcase with that chain which was fixed with lower portion of the berth. It was stated that in that compartment on berth Nos.51 and 52, two passengers were sleeping. The train left the railway station Dhanbad at 10.55 p. m. on 4.9.2001. The conductor was present in the compartment and police personnel were also taking round in that compartment. It was stated that when the appellant got up next morning at 5.30 a. m. at Railway Station Mugal Sarai, he noticed that his suitcase was missing alongwith all his belongings. It was stated that the appellant made efforts to trace out the same but was not successful. The appellant got down at the Railway Station and lodged a report (FIR) with the police authorities with great difficulty. It was stated that in view of the above unfortunate incident, the appellant instead of going to Amritsar, had to break the journey and had to get down from the train at Delhi in the night of 5.9.2001. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant in the complaint, filed by him had claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to be awarded to him as per details given in paras 16 and 17 of the complaint.

(3.) The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the District Forum, New Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and on the above ground has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant.