Missing Luggage From Reserved Train Compartment, Rohtak District Commission Directs Indian Railways To Pay Rs. 2.5 Lakhs For Negligence

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana) bench comprising Nagender Singh Kadian (President), Tripti Pannu (Member) and Vijender Singh (Member) held the Station Superintendent of Rohtak Railway Station liable for negligence and inadequate security and safety of passengers' belongings. It directed the railway authority to pay a compensation of Rs 2,50,000 to a Complainant whose language was stolen during the train journey. Brief Facts: Mrs Monika Rani (“Complainant”) was travelling from Rohtak to Mumbai on train number 12138 Punjab Mail in an AC-I coach. She checked her luggage at the Bahadurgarh Railway Station, but upon reaching Delhi, she discovered that one of her bags was missing. The missing bag reportedly contained items with a total worth of Rs. 240,000, including a bag valued at Rs. 5,000/-, 20 suits worth Rs. 25,000/-, 10 sarees valued at Rs. 50,000/-, cash amounting to Rs. 30,000/-, three gold rings worth Rs. 45,000/-, a mangal sutra worth Rs. 80,000/-, and three pairs of silver payals worth Rs. 5,000/-. The Complainant promptly reported the incident to the Government Railway Police (GRP) in Rohtak and filed a Zero FIR on the same day. Despite approaching the Station Superintendent at both the Railway Station Rohtak and Delhi, there was no satisfactory action taken by them. Feeling aggrieved, she filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak, Haryana (“District Commission”) against Indian Railways. In response, the Railways argued that it wasn't responsible for the unbooked luggage or personal belongings of passengers. It referred to Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, which states that the railway administration is not liable for the loss, destruction, damage, or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and provided a receipt. Moreover, in the case of luggage carried by the passenger in their charge, it must be proven that the loss, destruction, damage, or deterioration resulted from negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or its servants. It also referred to the provisions of the Coaching Tariff, arguing that articles taken into carriage are at the entire risk of the owner. They pointed out another clause giving notice to the public that the railway is not accountable for any article unless it is booked, and a receipt is provided by their clerk or agents. Furthermore, it contended that the issue of missing/theft items falls under the jurisdiction of the Police Department of the concerned state, and the Station Superintendent, Rohtak was not the correct party to file a consumer complaint against. Observations by the Commission: Referring to the objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission raised by the railways, the District Commission held that since the Complainant booked the ticket from Rohtak to Delhi, therefore it possesses territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further, the District Commission referred to the decision in the case of General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Vs. Anupama Sharma [First Appeal No. 34 of 2017], where the Punjab State Consumer Commission held that the price difference between unreserved and reserved tickets is significant, and passengers purchasing reserved tickets expect a certain minimum level of security and safety during their train journey. Further, the District Commission emphasized that the railway authorities failed to prevent unauthorized individuals from entering reserved compartments, indicating a deficiency on the part of the railway authorities in providing the required safety and security. Consequently, the District Commission held the Indian Railways liable for deficiency in service and directed it to pay an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- to the Complainant. It was further instructed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs. Case Title: Monika Rani vs Indian Railways Case No.: Complaint Case No. 450/2018 Advocate for the Complainant: A.S. Hooda Advocate for the Respondent: N.A. Click Here To Read/Download Order

Missing Luggage From Reserved Train Compartment, Rohtak District Commission Directs Indian Railways To Pay Rs. 2.5 Lakhs For Negligence

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Missing Luggage From Reserved Train Compartment, Rohtak District Commission Directs Indian Railways To Pay Rs. 2.5 Lakhs For Negligence

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers