ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. The revision petitioners are South Eastern Railway, Calcutta and Central Railway, Mumbai through their General Managers, The respondent Km. Bharati Arora, who is the original complainant in the District Forum, Bhopal filed, this complaint for deficiency in service for theft and loss of suitcase from the reserved berth from Coach No. S-9 of the Train No. 8254 and the District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the petitioners to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings. The petitioners/Railways aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, filed an Appeal No. 1524/2002 in the State Commission whereas the complainant Ms. Bharti Arora also dissatisfied with the order filed an Appeal No. 1373/2002 for enhancement of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- the amount originally prayed for in the complaint. The learned State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and allow the complainant’s appeal by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,400/-and also gave cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid within 2 months or else the amount Rs. 12,400/- would attract interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the order which is 21.4.2003.
2. Brief facts of the case are :
Ku. Bharati Arora, her mother and two other family friends boarded the train No. 8254 Amarkantak Express on 20th July, 2000 from Bhopal to Pendhra Road from where they were to go to Amarkantak a holy place to perform puja and religious ceremonies. Since their berths were far they had requested the Conductor to give nearer berths and they were shifted from Coach No. S-7 to S-9. It is her case that there were no bolts and hook below the berth to keep her VIP suitcase containing valuables since she wanted to lock her baggage with a chain. She alleged that from time to time she was checking if her luggage was there and woke up in Katni where the train had a stoppage of about half an hour and saw that her suitcase was being taken away by some miscreants who got off from the train and she spotted them on the opposite side of the platform and tried to stop the train by pulling the chain and she alleges that since chain was not working the train could not be stopped. At Umaria, which is the next station she went to lodge the report to G.R. Police Station but that was not recorded by them. Then she telephoned to Superintendent of Police as the train left, requested them to send the police at the Railway Station, Shahdol where she lodged the complaint later. Thereafter she served the notice to the petitioners but no heed was paid and hence she filed the complaint in the District Forum for deficiency in service.
3. The petitioners contended here and in both the Fora below on the following grounds,(a) that the Bhopal District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as according to the version of the complainant the suitcase was stolen by the miscreants or unauthorised persons at Katni Railway Station; (b) that the complainant was provided two berths in Coach S-7 and that the complainant ought not to have travelled in Coach S-9 as Section 53 of Railways Act, 1989 prohibits transfer of certain tickets; (c) that the liability of loss due to destruction, damage deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage Railways cannot be held responsible under Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 and lastly, that the compensation that was given by the District Forum and then further enhanced by the State Commission was not based on any evidence and both the Fora awarded compensation without giving adequate reasons. It is further argued that a detailed inquiry is required to assess the actual loss, if any, and that it involves complicated question of facts which can only be tried by Civil Court and that the Consumer Forum does not have the jurisdiction to try the present complaint
4. As for the first contention, we do not see how the petitioners can contend that Bhopal District Forum do not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint because the complainant purchased the ticket at Bhopal, boarded the train in Bhopal and travelled on reserved berths. We find their contention on territorial jurisdiction raised has no merit and fails. Second contention that they could not have been transferred to Coach No. S-9 when they were to travel in Coach No. S-7 is also not acceptable as Section 53 of the Railways Act, 1989 clearly authorises the Conductors for such transfers subject to certain circumstances.
5. It is appropriate to quote Section 53 of the Railways Act, 1989 which reads thus: “Prohibition against transfer of certain tickets. A ticket issued in the name of a person shall be used only by that person :
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall prevent mutual transfer of a seat or berth by passengers travelling by the same train :
Provide further that a railway servant authorised in this behalf may permit change of name of a passenger having reserved a seat or berth subject to such circumstances as may be prescribed.”
6. Petitioner’s contention is that the respondents travelled unauthorisedly in Coach No. S-9 fails from the bare reading of Section 53 as proviso to Section 53 does not prevent mutual transfer of a seat or berth by passengers travelling by the same train. It further provides that a railway servant is authorised to permit such changes of reserved seat or berth holding. The Conductor/TTE of the train transferred the berths in S-9 Coach so that the respondent and other members could travel together
7. The third contention of the petitioner is based on Section 100 of the Act, which reads as under:
“100. 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.”
The present case is not a case of booking of the luggage as it was a suitcase which a passenger can carry with her in reserved compartment of the train.
8. The distinction between loss of luggage booked with Railway administration and loss of baggage carried by a passenger in a reserved compartment has been made in our earlier decision in the case of Union of India v. Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave and Anr. I (2003) CPJ 72 (NC) (2003). In the present case, it is evident from the facts which have come on record that unauthorised person entered and fled away taking the suitcase. The railway staff was not present to take heed of her plea of theft. Ms. Arora tried to stop the train by pulling the chain but the chain was defective. When the train stopped at Umariya Railway Station at about 2.30 a.m., she informed about the theft to Umariya SP who conveyed the message to SP, Shahdol. Ms. Arora gave a written report to constable Shri Ram Bahadur Yadav of Railway Police, Shahdol. Nothing came out of all these complaints. Her complaint in the District Forum has been allowed and they held railways for deficiency in services for not providing the hooks for the safety of the luggage and for not protecting the passengers with their property in the reserved compartment.
9. The responsibility of TTE attached to the second class sleep coach have been considered in our earlier decision in Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave’s case wherein under Rules 4, 14, 16, 17 of Railway Authority clearly cast the responsibility on the TTE who failed to perform his duty which led to the incident of theft. The duty of TTE for sleeper coach reads as under:
“4. He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach, guide them to their berths/seats and prevent unauthorised persons from the coach. He shall in particular ensure that persons holding platform tickets, who came to see off or receive passengers do not enter the coach.
14. He shall ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move and open them up for passengers as and when required.
16. He shall ensure that the end doors of vestibuled trains are kept locked between 22.00 and 6.00 hrs. to prevent outsiders entering the coach
17. He shall remain vigilant particularly during night time and ensure that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorised persons do not enter the coach.”
10. The above mentioned list of duties if not adhered to in the interest of passengers, and if not effectively adhered to and enforced, will remain as paper duties. We endorse the view taken by both the Fora on this issue.
11. As for the last contention of petitioner regarding the compensation we are of the view, that these facts have been gone into by both the Fora. Enhancement of Rs. 2,400/- above Rs. 10,000/- allowed by State Commission as we see is only for the cost of VIP suitcase worth Rs. 2,400/- which in our opinion has been rightly awarded. There is no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. We do not see any reason for us to interfere our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act.
The Revision Petition is dismissed.