Train Passengers Responsible For Luggage Safety Unless Railways' Negligence Is Proven, New Delhi District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Northern Railway

Brief Facts:

The Complainant, while travelling on the CG Sampark Kranti Superfast Express Train, had his belongings stolen from his seat/berth during a stop near Okhla station. The stolen items included a Dell Inspiron 3543 laptop, along with its accessories, a Dhariwal Loi/blanket, a Dida Track Suit, a lunch pack, and other daily use articles. Despite informing the Nizamuddin Railway Police on the same day of the theft, the Complainant was provided with a lost report instead of registering an FIR. Subsequent attempts to register a supplementary FIR were also met with resistance from the authorities.

The Complainant undertook various actions to mitigate the situation, including contacting Dell Inspiron to block services on the stolen laptop and reaching out to the McAfee Antivirus support team for assistance. Despite these efforts, the Complainant faced hurdles in obtaining a satisfactory resolution from the authorities. It wasn't until later that an FIR was registered, and even then, an Untraced Report was issued with no significant progress in recovering the stolen items. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the Northern Railways (“Railways”).

In response to the complaint, the Railways contended that the responsibility for the security of unbooked luggage rests with the passenger and not with the railway administration. Referring to the provisions of the Railways Act and Coaching Tariff Clause Act, the Railways argued that the Complainant failed to fulfil the requirements for holding the railway administration liable for the loss.

Furthermore, it argued that the matter falls under criminal jurisdiction rather than consumer protection laws and reiterated that the railway police, being under state government jurisdiction, is responsible for maintaining law and order. It stated that the Complainant was negligent in leaving the luggage unattended, particularly when going to the washroom.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission referred to the Supreme Court case of Vijay Kumar Jain vs Union of India & Anr. and concluded that passengers are responsible for the safety of their luggage during the journey. This absolves the Railways of liability unless negligence on their part is proven.

According to the District Commission, the Complainant voluntarily left his belongings unattended on his seat while he went to the washroom. Therefore, it determined that the railway administration cannot be held responsible for the loss of unattended luggage. The Commission asserted that the Complainant's failure to exercise due diligence in safeguarding his belongings during transit did not amount to a deficiency in service on the part of the railways. Consequently, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.