Deficiency In Service: NCDRC Dismisses Indian Railways' Revision Petition, Directs To Compensate Rs. 4.6 Lakhs

The Commission directed Railways to pay pay Rs. 4 Lakhs for the stolen goods with interest, Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation expenses as it violated several of its duties which have been prescribed by the Railway Board by not having adequate personnel, not closing the gates at night, allowing intruders in the coach, and not aiding the Complainant in filing the FIR.

Brief Facts:

The Complainant boarded a train from Bikaner to Delhi. At around 4.45 AM, while the train was leaving Rewari Railway Station, an unknown person snatched her purse, which contained cash and valuable items. When she tried to chase the thief, another person, who seemed to be dressed like a train attendant, restrained her and disappeared along with the thief. She couldn't see their faces as they were hiding behind a curtain.

During the incident, all four doors of the coach, including the small door in the AC coach, were open, and there were no attendants, ticket collectors, or security guards present. After the incident, she pulled the emergency chain to stop the train, but no help arrived for a considerable time. She filed a Zero FIR, but no progress was made by the Police Station Rewari in recovering the stolen items.

She alleged that the railway's negligence constituted deficient service. The District Commission allowed the complaint and ordered the Railways to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- for the stolen goods with interest, Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation expenses. The Railways appealed before the State Commission, however, it upheld the District Forum's decision.

Contentions of the Parties:

Railways

The Railways argued that the orders passed by the Lower Commissions are erroneous, containing factual inaccuracies, and are legally flawed due to material irregularities. It claimed that the complaint was incorrectly filed before the District Commission in Bikaner, where the alleged theft of the purse did not occur, leading to a lack of territorial jurisdiction for the District Commission to entertain the complaint. It further asserted that the responsibility for the security of goods in the railway coaches lies with the passengers themselves.

Despite other passengers being present, the complainant did not seek their assistance in apprehending the thief. It argued that claiming missing or stolen luggage during a journey in a reserved coach does not automatically make the Railway liable unless it is proven that the Railway was deficient in its service. Moreover, the burden of proving negligence on the part of the Railway lies on the passenger making such allegations. It contended that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission is barred in this matter due to specific provisions in Sections 97 and 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, which pertain to the prohibition of certain claims related to thefts.

Complainant

The Complainant argued that both District Commission and State Commission have given concurrent findings regarding deficiency in service. It relied upon the Supreme Court decision of Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. in respect of revisional jurisdiction. It also contended that the Railways was negligent in providing safety and security to its passengers as the doors of the train were left unattended and they were supposed to keep of the gates of train closed during night and also to keep vigil. She also relied on NCDRC’s decisions of Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwalla, General Manager South Central Railway vs. Jagannath Mohan Shinde, wherein it was held that the Railways cannot take recourse of Section 100 of the Indian Railway Act. She further argued that it is the duty of the Railway to ensure the safety and security of a passenger who is traveling in reserved berth and relied on Station Master, Indian Railways Vs. Sunil Kumar.

Observations of the Commission:

The NCDRC dismissing the Revision Petition observed that there is no merit in the Railways' argument that the incident falls outside the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act and should be dealt with under the Indian Penal Code and Railway Claim Tribunal Act. The NCDRC cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Imperia Structures Ltd vs Anil Patni and Anr., stating that the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are additional to those available under other statutes.

Furthermore, the NCDRC highlighted that the Railways have a presence across India, and since the complainant boarded the train from Bikaner, the District Commission in Bikaner was correct in entertaining the Consumer Complaint.

The Commission upheld the orders of the Lower Commissions, which found the Railways liable for deficiency of service. It held that as per the provisions of the Railways Act, it was established that if it is proven that the loss, destruction, or damage occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or any of its employees, then the Railways would be held responsible.

The Commission concluded that the Railways is liable for deficiency in service and it has violated several of its duties which have been prescribed by the Railway Board by not having adequate personnel, not closing the gates at night, allowing intruders in the coach, and not aiding the Complainant in filing the FIR.

Case Title: Indian Railway & 2 Ors. vs Uma Agarwal

Click Here To Read/DownloadOrder