GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY Vs. LAVLEEN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/ Opposite Parties against Respondent / Complainant challenging the impugned Order dtd. 14/9/2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna, in Appeal bearing No. 390 of 2015. Vide such Order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order dtd. 10/11/2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Buxar, in Complaint Case No. 81/2014.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was travelling on 1/8/2014 in the Train No. 12149, 'Pune-Patna Express' from Allahabad Junction to Buxar Station in A.C.'III category with her son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren. The Complainant was travelling with her family members with valid tickets bearing seat Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in Coach B-2 having PNR No. 812-6466923. The Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,380.00 for the said tickets wherein the security fees was Rs.120.00. It was the case of the Complainant that the nearest seat to the seat of the Complainant i.e., Seat no. 6, was unauthorisedly allotted by the TTI to a person before Mughalsarai, who was staring at the brown colour purse of the Complainant and the Complainant reported the same to Opposite Party No. 4 (Petitioner No.4 herein). It was submitted that the Complainant's bag was there before Mughalsarai till the starting of the train however, Complainant's granddaughter started crying after starting of the train due to which Complainant's son and daughter-in-law's attention shifted to her. It was further stated that the Complainant noticed at the Gahmer Station that her bag was missing and the unauthorised person seated on seat No.6 had also disappeared. The Complainant immediately informed the TTI about the same. It was also stated that the bag contained a sum Rs.22,000.00, Gold set costing Rs.3,00,000.00, Pan Card, Mobile, Voter I.D. Card, Staff I.D., Back paper, Educational Certificate and Reservation Ticket. It was averred by the Complainant that the Railways collect Security Fees for secure and happy journey of the passengers till their destination and the Complainant had to bear physical, financial, and mental harassment to the tune of Rs.9,00,000.00 along with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000.00 due the negligence and deficiency in service of the then TTI/ Coach Attendant. It was further stated that the Complainant had informed about the above said incident to the Station Officer, Train Police Station, Buxar on 2/8/2014. The Complainant further served a Legal Notice on all the Opposite Parties on 22/8/2014. However, no action was taken by the Railways. Hence, the Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum being aggrieved by such acts of the Opposite Parties and alleged deficiency in service on their part, seeking payment of Rs.9,90,000.00 and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000.00.

(3.) The Opposite Parties appeared before the District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on their part. It was contended by the Opposite Parties that the provision to realise Safety Charge from the passengers is only to promote safe travelling of the passengers on Railways and such safety surcharge is not realised for the passengers' luggage and the concerned passengers have to look after their luggage personally. Further, reliance was placed on Sec. 100 of Indian Railways Act and Rule 506.2 of The Coaching Tariff Act. It was also contended that the value of the alleged purse was only known to the Complainant or her family, and they should have protected and looked after the alleged purse personally. It was further averred that all the allegations were one sided and there was no witness who saw the alleged incident. It was further the case of the Opposite Parties that on berth No.6, one Pushpa Sharma was travelling from Pune to Khandwa railway station who left the train at Khandwa and further the said berth was not allotted to anyone. It was also submitted that prior to Mughalsarai station, the said berth was vacant and after arrival of the train at Mughalsarai, the crew (staff) had been changed as per rules, and further from Mughalsarai to Patna Jn. TTE/ Dy. CIT, Shamsad Ahmad, had taken over the charge who had checked the coach just after departure of the train from Mughalsarai and had found the said berth No. 6 had not been allotted to anyone, and nobody was travelling on berth No.6. It was further contended that nobody had lodged any complaint in writing or orally regarding the alleged theft to the Opposite Party No. 4, or the train escort party. It was also averred that the articles in the purse were known to the Complainant or her family members and not the Opposite Parties and neither the Complainant herself nor her family members have declared the value and kinds of articles kept earlier in the purse before the Railway Administration, and that they had also not deposited the surcharge as per The Coaching Tariff Act. Therefore, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.