Theft In Reserved AC Coach: Pathankot Consumer Commission Holds Northern Railway Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathankot, comprising President Kulwinder Singh Pannu and Member Raj Kumar Shukla, held Northern Railway liable for deficiency in service following the theft of a passenger's handbag from a reserved AC coach.
The Commission observed that although Railways are generally not liable for the loss of unbooked luggage, liability would arise where the loss is attributable to the negligence of railway staff. It found that the Railway failed to establish that a coach attendant was present and on duty at the relevant time.
Brief Facts
Kalu Ram and his wife, Suman Yadav (complainants), were travelling with their child in a 3AC coach of the Rajdhani Express from Tinsukia (Assam) to New Delhi. While they were asleep during the journey, Suman Yadav's handbag was allegedly stolen. According to the complaint, the bag contained a gold mangalsutra worth ₹65,000, ₹5,000 in cash, and her SBI passbook. After discovering the theft, they searched for the coach attendant but could not find one. They then informed the RPF personnel and the TTE.
On reaching New Delhi, the complainants registered a Zero FIR and approached the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of Northern Railway for failing to ensure the safety and security of passengers travelling in the reserved coach. They also produced the purchase bill of the stolen mangalsutra and sought reimbursement for the stolen belongings along with compensation.
Arguments by the Railway
Northern Railway admitted that the complainants had travelled on the train but denied liability for the theft. It contended that no complaint had been lodged with the SHO, GRP, at Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Railway Station. It also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vijay Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Ors. (2013), contending that Railways cannot ordinarily be held responsible for unbooked luggage. It denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
Decision of the Commission
Upon examining the evidence, the Commission found that the complainants had, in fact, informed the RPF during the journey about the theft and that the incident had been duly recorded. It also noted that the complainants had registered a Zero FIR upon reaching their destination. The Commission observed that once the incident had been reported to the RPF, the Railway could not contend that it had no knowledge of the theft.
The Commission further noted that, according to the complaint, no coach attendant was present when the theft was discovered. Although the Railway denied negligence, it failed to produce any duty roster or other record to establish that the coach attendant was present and performing his duties. The Commission relied on the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision in Indian Railway & 2 Ors. v. Uma Aggarwal (Revision Petition No. 1099 of 2020), which held that Railways can be held liable for the loss of hand-held luggage where negligence on the part of railway staff is established.
Holding Northern Railway liable for deficiency in service, the Commission directed it to pay ₹70,000 towards the value of the stolen belongings, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. It also awarded ₹10,000 as compensation for mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainants.
Case Title: Kalu Ram v. General Manager, Northern Railway & Ors.
Case Number: DC/662/RBT/CC/126 of 2023