|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rising incidence of theft on the trains should make the Railways sit up and take action against erring employees, argues Pushpa Girimaji FOR several years now, chains and locks have been one of the fastest selling items on railway platforms, thanks to the increasing number of thefts on trains. Going by the experience of a passenger, they may well be replaced by small trolleys that enable passengers to take their baggage with them wherever they move on board the Indian Railways, including the toilet. On September 4, 2001, at about 5.45 am, Abhishankar Adhikari, who was travelling on the Delhi-Kalka Mail, went to the wash-basin at the end of the coach to brush his teeth. Five minutes later, when he returned to his seat, his suitcase had disappeared. Considering that he was the only passenger in his coupe in the two-tier AC coach, he was surprised that someone had taken away his suitcase in such a short time. Immediately, he informed the coach attendant, who apparently took it very casually. Subsequently, Adhikari filed a complained with the GRP at Howrah. Later, he lodged a case before the consumer court at the district level seeking a compensation of Rs 50,000. The district forum awarded a compensation of Rs 40,000 towards the loss of baggage, Rs 5000 towards mental agony and Rs 1000 as the cost of litigation, and also an eight per cent interest on the amount in case it was not paid within 30 days. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission before which the Railways appealed, however, reduced the compensation to Rs 10,000 on the ground that the consumer could not produce any documents to prove the value of the goods in the suitcase. The Railways, then, filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, arguing that that they cannot be held responsible for the loss of baggage. The apex consumer court pointed out that to say that the Railways was not liable for the theft committed from such a reserved compartment having a coach attendant, would defeat the very purpose of providing the facility of a coach attendant. And to say that some other passenger might have taken the luggage while leaving the train, thereby escaping the coach attendant’s eye was neither convincing nor appealing. The commission further said a passenger of two-tier AC compartment could not be expected to carry his luggage to the wash-basin to brush his teeth or to the toilet. It is for this very purpose that the TTE is supposed to ensure that no person other than the reserved ticket holder enters the coach, particularly from 10 am to 6 pm. The commission concluded that the Railway officials, namely the coach attendant and TTE, were negligent in their duty. Referring to the state commission’s decision to reduce the compensation amount to Rs 10,000, the national commission said the state commission was quite conservative in its calculation of compensation. "One cannot be
expected to preserve bills of each and every item that one buys,
expecting that some day a theft may take place and one may be expected
to produce this kind of evidence", the national commission said. It
however also pointed out that while assessing damages, one has to take
into account, the possible depreciation of the value of the stolen
articles. And the compensation of Rs 10,000 for the loss of suitcase and
Rs 1000 towards costs awarded by the State Commission was certainly not
on the higher side, it said. (Divisional Railway Manager vs Abhishankar
Adhikari, RP no 904 of 2005). |
