No Proof Of Theft Of Gold Chain From Compartment, M.P. State Commission Allows Western Central Railways' Appeal

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench comprising Shri A.K. Tiwari (President) and Dr. Shrikant Pandey (Member) allowed an appeal filed by Western Central Railway against the order of the District Commission, Katni, Madhya Pradesh. The matter pertained to an alleged snatching of the Complainant's gold chain from outside of the train window while sleeping in the middle birth of a reserved compartment. The State Commission observed that it was untenable to hold that such theft could happen from the middle birth as it is not exposed to the train window. The Complainant also failed to substantiate the claimed value of the gold chain with sufficient proof and the claim regarding the absence of security. Brief Facts: Mr Subodh Singhania (“Complainant”) claimed that his wife was travelling in the middle birth of a reserved seat of the 'Narmada Express' train run by Western Central Railways (“Respondent”). Late at night, when his wife was asleep, some unknown thief snatched her gold chain from her neck by putting their hand inside the window of the train. Allegedly, the gold chain cost Rs. 93,000/-. Pursuant to this incident, the Complainant and his wife registered an F.I.R. at the local police station. He also filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Katni, Madhya Pradesh (“District Commission”) against Western Central Railways. He contended that the train compartment did not have any Coach Conductor or security personnel during the time of this incident. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent to pay Rs. 92,759/- for the lost chain along with Rs. 25,000/- compensation for mental agony, Rs. 10,000/- for other financial losses and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation costs. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondent filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (“State Commission”). The Respondent contended that it's hard to believe someone could snatch the gold chain from the middle birth by putting a hand inside the window. This was so because the middle birth passengers were not facing the window in any direction. Further, the Complainant also failed to present any proof regarding the absence of any security personnel or coach conductor from the compartment. It also contended that the value of the gold chain, as presented by the Complainant, was just an estimate and the Complainant failed to present any invoice to suggest that the gold chain cost Rs. 90,000/-. The F.I.R. filed by the Complainant also quoted just Rs. 40,000/- as the value of the chain, as opposed to the value claimed in the complaint. Observations of the Commission: The State Commission observed that the value of the gold chain was indeed differently quoted in the F.I.R. and the consumer complaint. Further, the Complainant failed to provide any proof to substantiate the absence of security personnel in the train compartment during the incident. He also provided just an estimated amount of the gold chain and failed to provide its tin composition and VAT value. Therefore, the claim for the value of the gold chain and other compensation was found to be untenable. As a result, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Commission. Case Title: Western Central Railway and Others vs Subodh Singhania Case No.: First Appeal No. 1881/2016 Advocate for the Appellant: Shri Sandeep Savita Advocate for the Respondent (Original Complainant): None

No Proof Of Theft Of Gold Chain From Compartment, M.P. State Commission Allows Western Central Railways' Appeal

Smita Singh

Tags