Detaining person forcefully by Railway Personnel without giving an opportunity to unload the luggage would constitute ‘deficiency of Service’

Station Master, Berhampore & 3 Ors. Vs Aditya Kumar Saha (NCDRC Delhi)

Conclusion: In present facts of the case the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that Railway Personnel were liable for ‘deficiency of Service’ when the Complainant was detained forcefully from the train without letting him to unload his luggage due to which the luggage was lost and the Complainant have to bear the financial loss.

Facts: In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition was filed under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioners was partly allowed.

Brief facts of the case was that the Complainant/Respondent booked four bags of Chappals costing Rs.58,480/- from Bethuadahari to Lalgola vide luggage ticket No. 292716 dated 27.09.2014 as he used to supply the Chappals to various shops at Lalgola Market for his livelihood. The Complainant had a monthly vendor ticket and he boarded the Lalgola passenger train in the Luggage Van. When the Lalgola passenger train reached Berhampore Station, the Petitioner No. 2 forcibly detained the Complainant from the Luggage Van without his four bags of Chappals despite repeated requests by the Complainant to unload his luggage. Petitioner No. 2 assured him that his luggage will be returned by the Railway Authorities. Thereafter Petitioner No. 2 and his subordinate slapped the Complainant as a result of which his spectacles fell and broke. The Petitioner No. 2 and his subordinate then put the Complainant in a lock-up and demanded Rs.700/- to release him. The Complainant then informed his son by telephone about the incident and the Complainant was released after his son made the payment to Petitioner No. 2. No proper receipt was provided against the said payment. After being released, the Complainant sent his son to Lalgola to search for the four bags but he could not find them anywhere. The Complainant met several staff of R.P.F. regarding the same but they all denied any information about it. He then lodged an FIR at Berhampore vide G.D.E. No. 1153/2014 dated 28.09.2014 and also lodged Complaint before the Petitioner No. 3. That even after a long period of time, the Railway officials neither took any initiative to find the luggage nor provided any proper reply. Aggrieved by the deficiency of service, negligence and mental agony caused to the Complainant by the Petitioners, he filed his Complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.

The District Forum vide its Order dated 30.03.2017 allowed the Complaint. Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Petitioners filed Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the Appeal of the Petitioners vide impugned Order dated 13.02.2019. The relevant extracts of the Order of the State Commission are set out as below –

“that the Appeal be and the same is allowed in part with cost of Rs.4,000/-payable to the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellants/OPs jointly and/or severally. The Appellants/OPs are further direct to pay jointly and/or severally Rs.58,480/- being the cost of the luggages along with simple interest @8% p. a from 27.09.2014 till the date of the instant order within 45 days hence.”

The National Commission observed that the Respondent/ Complainant was carrying a valid monthly ticket for himself which was valid for the period between 8^th September to 7^th October, 2014 (pages 40-41 of the Paper Book). The Respondent/ Complainant also produced his receipt showing payment of the charges for carrying excess luggage in the form of four bags full of chappals which were found 40kg above the permissible weight, and copy of which luggage ticket is on pages 42 & 43 of the Paper Book. Such ticket in question is of the date 27^th September, 2014 i.e. the date of occurrence itself.

So when the personnel of the Railways/Petitioners de-boarded him from the SLR Coach even assuming the same to be valid for any reason, they were certainly expected to see that the luggage which he was carrying with him under a proper luggage ticket also be got removed to ensure that no loss occurred to the same at any stage later on. But the same was not done, which certainly amounted to a deficiency in service on the part of the concerned Railway personnel. The Complainant was, therefore, rightly held to be entitled to the compensation assessed by both the Ld. Fora below and interest for the delay in its payment, which however was reduced by the Ld. State Commission from each day’s default in payment @ Rs. 50 to a flat interest rate of 8% p.a.

On basis of the above, the Petition was dismissed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed against the impugned Order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, in First Appeal No. A/585/2017 vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioners was partly allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the Complaint are that the Complainant/Respondent booked four bags of Chappals costing Rs.58,480/- from Bethuadahari to Lalgola vide luggage ticket No. 292716 dated 27.09.2014 as he used to supply the Chappals to various shops at Lalgola Market for his livelihood. The Complainant had a monthly vendor ticket and he boarded the Lalgola passenger train in the Luggage Van. When the Lalgola passenger train reached Berhampore Station, the Petitioner No. 2 forcibly detained the Complainant from the Luggage Van without his four bags of Chappals despite repeated requests by the Complainant to unload his luggage. Petitioner No. 2 assured him that his luggage will be returned by the Railway Authorities. Thereafter Petitioner No. 2 and his subordinate slapped the Complainant as a result of which his spectacles fell and broke. The Petitioner No. 2 and his subordinate then put the Complainant in a lock-up and demanded Rs.700/- to release him. The Complainant then informed his son by telephone about the incident and the Complainant was released after his son made the payment to Petitioner No. 2. No proper receipt was provided against the said payment. After being released, the Complainant sent his son to Lalgola to search for the four bags but he could not find them anywhere. The Complainant met several staff of R.P.F. regarding the same but they all denied any information about it. He then lodged an FIR at Berhampore vide G.D.E. No. 1153/2014 dated 28.09.2014 and also lodged Complaint before the Petitioner No. 3. That even after a long period of time, the Railway officials neither took any initiative to find the luggage nor provided any proper reply. Aggrieved by the deficiency of service, negligence and mental agony caused to the Complainant by the Petitioners, he filed his Complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 30.03.2017 allowed the Complaint. The relevant extracts of the Order of the District Forum are set out as below –

“Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No. 117/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No. 1&2 with a litigation cost of Rs. 4,000/-.

The Opposite Party No. 1&2 are directed jointly and/or severally to pay a sum of Rs.58,480/- to the complainant including interest @8% since 27.09.2014 till the payment within 45 days from the date of final order…”

4. Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Petitioners filed Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the Appeal of the Petitioners vide impugned Order dated 13.02.2019. The relevant extracts of the Order of the State Commission are set out as below –

“that the Appeal be and the same is allowed in part with cost of Rs.4,000/-payable to the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellants/OPs jointly and/or severally. The Appellants/OPs are further direct to pay jointly and/or severally Rs.58,480/- being the cost of the luggages along with simple interest @8% p. a from 27.09.2014 till the date of the instant order within 45 days hence.

Failing which, a further simple interest @8% p.a. shall accrue to the cost of the luggage with interest accrued on it at the date, as ordered, from the date of default till the amount is fully realized.

The impugned judgment and order stands modified accordingly.”

5. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petitioner raising the following key issues –

a. That the impugned Order is bad in law;

b. That since the present case relates to claim for compensation of non-delivery of goods hence it is covered under Section 13(1)(a)(i) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and therefore not maintainable;

c. That this Commission in the case of Chief Commercial Manager (Claims) v. Sanjiv Sharma, IV (2015) CPJ 655 (NC) held that the matter which falls under Sec. 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act bars the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court;

d. That if a Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to a nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the case. This view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (Dr.) v. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 22 (SC);

e. That so far as the merits of the case are concerned, the Respondent raised frivolous grievance and hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

f. That the Respondent was arrested along with two other persons for travelling in the Side Luggage Room (SLR) Coach, which was restricted for passenger travel and was convicted by Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class vide Order dated 21.10.2014 after pleading guilty;

g. That the Railway is a public utility service of the Govt. of India , and compensation has to be given out of public exchequer. Hence, the Railway money should not be squandered over giving compensation on wrong and flimsy ground;

6. The Ld. Counsel for Petitioners argued that the present case relates to claim for compensation of non-delivery of goods/consignment. Therefore, it is not maintainable under Section 13(1)(a)(i) read with Section 15 and 28 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Therefore the District Forum wrongly and illegally usurped the jurisdiction of the RCT and allowed the Complaint; That so far as the merits of the case are concerned, the Respondent had filed his Complaint before the District Forum on frivolous grounds and with malafide intention to wreak vengeance against the Petitioners who are Government officials. The Respondent is liable for ‘perjury’ as he has not come before the Ld. Forum with clean hands by supressing the fact that he was arrested along with two other persons for traveling in SLR Coach and confessed before the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Berhampur. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- or to suffer imprisonment for 5 days, which he paid after adjusting from his bail sureties; That the Respondent claimed 4 bags to be missing but has stated 3 bags in his Complaint with inflated amount; That the Respondent had booked his luggage at his own risk as it was self-consignment and the Railway was not at all responsible for any loss of that consignment which was more than the permissible limit while traveling in train. The Ld. Counsel for Petitioner cited various judgments in support of his arguments, including Union of India v. B.D. Jhunjhunwala, FA No. 99/1976 (Orissa High Court), CCM (Claims) v. Sanjiv Sharma (supra), Southern Railway v. Stalin Herald, IV (2012) CPJ 634 (NC), Union of India & Ors. v. Yash Industries & Anr. (2014) CPJ 175 (NC), Ajay Kumar Banerjee & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1130, Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala & Ors., Appeal (Civil) No. 1833/2005, Ramnath Panjiyar v. Urban Electric Supply Division & Ors, IV (2014) CPJ 143 (NC).

7. This Commission has heard the Ld. Counsel of both parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Both the lower Fora have held that the Petitioners/Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant/Respondent for loss of his articles in the form of bags full of chappals/footwear purchased by him, a day before the date of occurrence, of which he had also produced the purchase Voucher which has been noted by the Ld. State Commission. He, undoubtedly, was carrying a valid monthly ticket for himself which was valid for the period between 8^th September to 7^th October, 2014 (pages 40-41 of the Paper Book). He also produced his receipt showing payment of the charges for carrying excess luggage in the form of four bags full of chappals which were found 40kg above the permissible weight, and copy of which luggage ticket is on pages 42 & 43 of the Paper Book. Such ticket in question is of the date 27^th September, 2014 i.e. the date of occurrence itself.

9. So when the personnel of the Railways/Petitioners de-boarded him from the SLR Coach even assuming the same to be valid for any reason, they were certainly expected to see that the luggage which he was carrying with him under a proper luggage ticket also be got removed to ensure that no loss occurred to the same at any stage later on. But the same was not done, which certainly amounted to a deficiency in service on the part of the concerned Railway personnel. The Complainant was, therefore, rightly held to be entitled to the compensation assessed by both the Ld. Fora below and interest for the delay in its payment, which however was reduced by the Ld. State Commission from each day’s default in payment @ Rs. 50 to a flat interest rate of 8% p.a.

10. This Commission, therefore, finds no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned Order of the Ld. State Commission.

11. Parties to bear their own costs.

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.