Lack Of Security Escorts & Unfastened Doors In Reserved Coaches Amounts To Deficiency In Service: NCDRC

Praveen Mishra

9 Sept 2026 11:15 AM IST

  • Lack Of Security Escorts & Unfastened Doors In Reserved Coaches Amounts To Deficiency In Service: NCDRC

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya, has held that the failure of Railway authorities to provide adequate security arrangements, including the absence of security personnel and failure to ensure that coach doors remained fastened during night hours, amounts to deficiency in...

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya, has held that the failure of Railway authorities to provide adequate security arrangements, including the absence of security personnel and failure to ensure that coach doors remained fastened during night hours, amounts to deficiency in service.

    The Commission clarified that although an armed robbery in a moving train constitutes an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, a consumer complaint founded on allegations of negligent security arrangements and deficiency in service is maintainable before the Consumer Fora as an additional statutory remedy.

    Brief Facts:

    complainants, Surender Pal Singh and his daughter, Preeti, were travelling from Hapur to Guwahati in Train No. 5610, Awadh-Assam Express. They had valid reservations in Sleeper Coach S-8.

    On the night of 28 August 2004, between approximately 3:00 AM and 4:15 AM, while the train was travelling between Barpeta and Rangiya in Assam, six to seven armed robbers allegedly entered the reserved coach. They allegedly threatened the passengers with weapons and looted cash, jewellery and other valuables. The robbers later pulled the emergency chain near Rangiya, stopped the train and escaped.

    Surender Pal Singh alleged that he lost ₹2,865 in cash and a Titan wristwatch worth ₹1,550. His daughter allegedly lost ₹1,310 in cash and gold jewellery, with the total alleged loss being ₹59,725.

    The complainants alleged that no attendant, security escort or Railway security personnel was present in the coach during the incident. They claimed that the absence of adequate security arrangements enabled the robbers to remain in the coach for a considerable period and escape after the robbery.

    After reaching Rangiya, the incident was reported to the Railway Police, and a case under Section 395 IPC was registered. The Railway authorities also acknowledged the occurrence of the robbery. However, the subsequent criminal proceedings ultimately ended in the acquittal of the accused.

    The complainants approached the District Consumer Forum-II, Bareilly, seeking ₹59,725 towards the alleged loss of cash and valuables, along with ₹40,000 for mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses.

    The District Forum held the Railways responsible for deficiency in service and awarded ₹65,000 compensation with 6% annual interest, along with ₹3,000 towards litigation expenses.

    The Railways challenged this order before the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission, which subsequently held that the robbery constituted an “untoward incident” and that the claim fell within the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal. The consumer complaint was consequently dismissed, leading the complainants to approach the NCDRC.

    Contentions of the Railways:

    The Railways contended that the robbery constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and any compensation claim arising from it had to be pursued before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and Sections 13(1-A) and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

    Observation and decision:

    The NCDRC held that although robbery is an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, the complaint was based on the Railways' failure to provide adequate safety and security in the reserved coach. The absence of security personnel and failure to properly secure the coach amounted to deficiency in service.

    The Commission set aside the State Commission's order and awarded the complainants ₹20,000 as consolidated compensation, including loss, mental agony and litigation expenses, with 6% interest in case of delayed payment.

    Case Title: Surender Pal Singh & Smt. Preeti v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railway & Ors.

    Case no.: REVISION PETITION NO, 1089 OF 2015

    Appearances:

    For the Petitioners/ complainants : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate

    For the Respondents/ Opposite Parties : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate

    Click Here To Read/Download Order

    Praveen Mishra

    Praveen Mishra

    Praveen Mishra is a Correspondent at LiveLaw. He covers consumer cases and reports on matters from various High Courts. A law graduate, he has been a part of LiveLaw for more than two years.

    Next Story