|
|
|
Sunday, March 21, 2004 |
|
|
|
Sunday, March 21, 2004 |
|
ON July 20, 2000, Bharti Arora, her mother and two family friends boarded Amarkantak Express at Bhopal. However, their journey turned into a nightmare. First of all, they had found the hook and the belt, which is provided beneath the seat to secure the passengers’ baggage, missing. And then, in the middle of the night, Bharti woke up to find some miscreants decamping with her baggage. She tried to stop the train, but the alarm chain was not working. To lodge a complaint with the Government Railway Police proved to be an even more difficult task, and could be accomplished only at a subsequent station. Later, when her baggage was not recovered, Bharti held the Railways responsible for allowing unauthorised persons into the reserved compartment and asked them to compensate her. When the Railways declined to do so, she sought the help of the consumer court, which awarded her Rs 12,500 as compensation. This was upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Revision Petition No 2241 of 2003). In fact, in a series of orders delivered in the last 18 months or so, the National Commission has come down heavily on the Railways for failing to protect the belongings of rail passengers on board. It has also made it clear that the Railways would be held liable if the passengers’ baggage or belongings were lost as a result of negligence of the railway staff or any misconduct on their part.
In the case of Mrs M. Kanthimathi vs Government of India, Ministry of Railways as well the Union of India vs Sanjiv Dilsukhlal Dave too, the consumer court made it known that in such cases it would not condone negligence on the part of the Railways or its staff. Now in the case of South Eastern Railways vs Bharti Arora, The Commission has elaborated on the responsibility of the Railways in general and that of the TTE in particular in ensuring the safety of passengers’ belongings and said that failure to perform these duties constituted negligence. The Commission in fact quoted the Railway Rules which clearly define the responsibilities of the TTE. Rule 16 for example, says: "He (The TTE) shall ensure that the end doors of the vestibule are kept locked between 22.00 and 06.00 hours to prevent outsiders entering the coach." Rule 17 says: "He shall remain vigilant, particularly during night time, and ensure that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorised persons do not enter the coach." All these verdicts of the apex consumer court should force the Railways to take appropriate measures to prevent thefts on running trains and protect the belongings of passengers. It should also force the TTEs to take their responsibilities more seriously and ensure that unauthorised persons do not enter reserved compartments. In fact what comes out loud and clear in all these cases is the scant regard shown by the Railways for the safety of passengers’ baggage. While in one case the windowpane was missing, in another, the lights in the compartment were not working. In yet another case, the provision made by the Railways to help the passengers secure their baggage to the seat had been removed. And in all the cases, the alarm chain was found to be only ornamental and did not serve any purpose. And, all the complainants had difficulty in registering complaints and the TTEs were found to be unsympathetic and uncooperative. |
In the case of General Manager, Northern Railway, VS
Amarnath Aggarwal, for example, where the passenger’s gold chain was
snatched during a journey from Mumbai to Goa by Mahalaxmi Express in
May, 1991, the apex consumer court upheld the decision of the lower
consumer court to award Rs 32,000 to the passenger towards the loss of
the chain. In this case, the window in the compartment in which the
complainant was travelling had no glass pane and this had obviously
facilitated the thief snatching the gold chain worn by the complainant’s
wife. The passengers’ attempt to stop the train immediately and catch
the culprit had also failed because the alarm chain meant for such
emergencies was not working.
