RAILWAYS WHEN LIABLE FOR LOSS OF PASSENGERS’ GOODS

Railways is a very  large department and multiple functions are performed at various  stages during all 24 hours of the day and night. It’s a very difficult question to decide and pinpoint the fault of railway employees unless the entre set of facts and circumstances are before us in chronological order. However the rule and law applicable to the facts and circumstance can be attracted for reaching to some logical end .Further ,if negligence is proved on the part of railway employee or employees ,it is again difficult to specify the quantum and consequences of loss suffered due to one or more employees’negligence  at different time and stages of the fact involved. Even at the next step when negligence is proved and guilty is also identified ,the amount of compensation is again a matter of calculation and evidence on record which is often not accurately available  in such matters.

Here is a case before us decided by national consumer dispute redressal commission in the matter of union of india v/s ajay kumar agrawal wherein compensation for an amount of Rs 25000/- was awarded to the complainant I and also rs 15000/- to complainant-2 ,and cost of Rs 5000/- was also given. Number of issues were raised in the case

·         Question of  jurisdiction of the  consumer court when Railway claims tribunals are functional in railway matters . 

·         The passenger is to take care of his own language and articles in accordance with Rule 506.2 of Indian Railway Conference Association (IRCA) No. 24, No. 216,

·         The passenger is supposed to declare before the starting station and get any valuable articles insured by paying the necessary charges for the railway administration taking extra precautions as  stated that under Rule 1301(I)(IV) of IPCA No. 24,

Both the above issues were taken up in earlier matters also and in the case of -

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave And Anr. on 23 October, 2002

And also in the case of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railways and Anr. v. Dr. K.K. Sharma and Ors., [200 (III) CPJ page 1 (NC)]. The gist of the judgment is that "existence of remedy provided by Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 did not take away the jurisdiction of the consumer courts to decide the question of deficiency of service. The consumer courts cannot sub-plant the jurisdiction of the Railway Tribunals or any other judicial or quasi judicial body but can supplement the jurisdiction of these bodies in appropriate cases. It provides an additional remedy to a consumer".

As regards the issue of negligence of the railway administration,vide circular dated 11.9.1998,Govt. of India ,Ministry of Railway published some of the important duties . a list of duties prescribed by railway administration "TTE for Sleeper Coaches" is brought on record. Of these, duties prescribed at Sl. No. 4, 14, 16 and 17 are very relevant. These read as follows:

 

 

·         He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach, guide them to their berth/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.

·         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.

·         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.

·         He shall remain vigilant particularly during night time and ensure that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorised persons do not enter the coach".

 The above duties clearly show that there is a responsibility cast on the TTE attached to the second class sleeper coach to be very vigilant about anyone other than the reserved ticket holders entering the compartment, to such an extent that he is required to prevent even a relation of the passenger holding a platform ticket who comes to see off a passenger from entering a coach

In the case before us, suitcase had been taken away and stolen which is reasonably possible when enterance door of the coach having not been latched when the train was on the move . The intruder came when the train was on the move in the night and this has not been seriously challenged. Admittedly, the TTE has failed in the performance of his duties which lead to the incident of theft. The arguments of the Petitioner that the rules nowhere provide that there should be a TTE for each sleeper coach cannot be accepted because, then, the impressive list of duties which would remain only on the paper, since they cannot be effectively enforced.

 We may also refer to the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Manoj H. Pathak, reported as II [(1996) II CPJ 31(a)(NC)] as under:

"It is not in dispute that the complainant had hired services of Railway Administration for consideration and if there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration, then it is a consumer dispute within the scope and ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. ”

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Previous

Next