B.C. Gupta ORDER
V.K. Jain, J. (Presiding Member)
1. The complainant/respondent, along with his wife and some others travelled from Nizamuddin to Banda in AC Coach of Uttar Pradesh Sampark Kranti Express. The complainant at that time was posted as District Magistrate of Banda. His wife Mrs. Anju Ranjan kept her belongings, including a hand purse on a seat, in the coach in which they were travelling. The said purse allegedly contained one ruby & diamond ring, cash, one Nokia mobile phone, US$ worth Rs. 45,000/- and important documents. The aforesaid purse was stolen during the course of their journey. The articles of some other co-passengers were also stolen during the course of the said journey. Alleging negligence and insufficient security on the part of the North Central Railways, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the Railways, claiming that there was no deficiency on their part in rendering services to the complainant.
2. It transpired during the course of hearing before the District Forum that the purse of the wife of the complainant had been stolen by a coach attendant, who had been employed by the Railways and was on duty in the coach in which the complainant was travelling. Vide order dated 30.5.2013, the District Forum directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 26,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of the stolen goods, along with Rs. 7,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as the cost of litigation.
3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.12.2014, the petitioners are before us by way of this revision petition.
4. Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as under:
"Responsibility as carrier of luggage - A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefor and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants".
It would be seen from a careful analysis of the aforesaid provision that it exempts the Railway Administration from any liability, for the loss, damage etc. where the luggage is carried by a passenger in his charge, except in a case where the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration to the luggage of the passenger happens due to the negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or on the part of any of its servants. Thus, if it is shown that the luggage carried by the passenger in his charge was lost, damaged or destroyed due to misconduct on the part of a railway employee, Section-100 of the Railways Act cannot be invoked for resisting a claim seeking reimbursement for such a loss, damage or deterioration. The term 'luggage' has been defined in Section 2(23) of the Railways Act to mean the goods of a passenger either carried by him in charge or entrusted to a Railway Administration for carriage. Therefore, the purse of a passenger which he carries under his own charge, would be luggage, within the meaning of the Railways Act and a consumer complaint for the loss of the purse as well as the articles kept in it will not be barred if the said loss happens due to negligence or misconduct of a railway employee. In the present case, it is the case of the petitioners themselves that the articles of the complainant, his wife and their companions were stolen by Coach Attendant. The railway attendant is a servant of the railways irrespective of whether he is employed directly or is engaged on contractual basis through a contractor employed by the Railways.