SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY Vs. MULLAPUDI PHANI RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 31.3.2005 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad allowing appeal against the order dated 26.11.2003 of a District Forum and directing the petitioners/opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the respondent/complainant. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision lie in narrow compass. Respondent purchased a ticket from Guduru Junction to Rourkela from Railway Station Eluru. He boarded S-4 coach at Eluru Station. Respondent also purchased luggage ticket for five numbers besides one Intel Pentium 000 700 MHs computer valued at Rs. 39,500. It was alleged that on reaching Rajahmundry Railway Station the Railway Authorities informed that S-4 coach will be detached due to mechanical fault and passengers of that coach should along with their luggage shift to S-5 coach. Respondent and other passengers travelling in S-4 coach shifted to S-5 coach. It was further alleged that on reaching Visakhapatnam, the conductor of S-5 coach informed the respondent and other passengers that new S-4 coach has been attached at the tail of the train. He asked the passengers of S-4 coach to shift along with their luggage to new S-4 coach. Respondent picked up three numbers of his belongings and shifted to S-4 coach. Remaining two number of belongings were handed over to the conductor of S-5 coach with request to look after them for a while. It was alleged that when the respondent came back to pick up remaining two belongings including the computer, he found them missing. This fact was immediately reported to conductor of S-5 coach. Respondent also lodged a complaint with Railways Police at Rourkela on 2.11.2000. Thereafter, complaint was filed seeking direction to the petitioners to pay amount of Rs. 45,000 towards the cost of computer and Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony. Petitioners contested the complaint by filing written version. For want of old reservation charts it was not admitted that respondent was bona fide passenger of 8690 Express of 29.10.2000 in S-4 coach. However, it was stated that S-4 coach was detached at Rajahmundry station on 29.10.2000 on account of mechanical failure. Information relating to re-attachment of another coach as S-4 at Visakhapatnam station was stated to be not readily available. It was stated that five packets weighing 50 kgs on ICP basis were booked by the respondent. It was alleged that the name and designation of S-5 coach conductor has neither been given in the legal notice dated 15.3.2001 nor in the complaint. It was denied that two numbers of belongings were entrusted to the conductor S-5 coach as alleged. It was stated that the petitioners are not responsible for the luggage carried by the passengers at their personal risk under Section 100 of Railways Act, 1989. It was further alleged that complaint was maintainable only before the District Forum at Visakhapatnam against South Eastern Railway. Complaint was stated to be barred by limitation.

(3.) Submission advanced by Shri Rajeshwar Singh for petitioners is that the finding recorded by State Commission that luggage was entrusted to the conductor of S-5 coach while changing over from S-5 to S-4 coach by the respondent, is erroneous. In support of the submission, attention has been drawn to the affidavit filed by way of evidence before the District Forum of P. Bhavani Shanker (copy at page 23). This affidavit notices that on 29.10.2000 the deponent was working as Senior Travelling Ticket Examiner, he was on duty to man S-4 and S-5 coaches from Visakhapatnam to Titlagarh in Train No. 8690; TT informed him that as S-4 coach was reported sick at Rajahmundry, same was detached and passengers of S-4 coach were temporarily accommodated in S-5 coach and message was given to Visakhapatnam for arrangement of an alternative coach to accommodate the passengers of S-4 coach and coach was reattached at the end of train and the passengers in S-5 coach were asked to shift to new attached S-4 coach. This affidavit further notices that in this process no passenger approached the deponent to take care of his luggage nor any one reported loss of luggage right from Visakhapatnam to Titlagarh. P. Bhavani Shanker was not cross-examined by the respondent with result the averments made in his affidavit to the said effect have remained unrebutted. Main controversy in this revision centres around the entrustment of two numbers of belongings including computer by the respondent to the conductor of S-5 coach at Visakhapatnam. In view of averments made in said affidavit, we find considerable merit in the submission advanced on behalf of petitioners that the finding returned by the State Commission of entrusting of two number of belongings including computer to the conductor of the said coach while changing over from S-5 to new S-4 coach by the respondent is erroneous. Decision in S. Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay v. Union of India and Ors., II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 227=(2004) 6 SCC 113, has no applicability to the facts of present case. Having reached this conclusion the order passed by State Commission deserves to be set aside being not legally sustainable.