Railways Not Responsible For Loss Due To Theft Of Passenger's Belongings Unless Its Officials Were Negligent: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the railways cannot be held responsible for the loss of theft of passenger's belonging unless there is negligence on the part of its officials.

“…a passenger, carrying his own luggage with him in compartment, is himself responsible for its safe keeping and Railways are not liable for any loss therein due to theft unless it is a case of theft on account of negligence or misconduct of the railway officials,” Justice Ravinder Dudeja said.

The Court dismissed a petition filed by a man whose backpack containing laptop, camera, charger, eye glasses and ATM Cards was stolen while he was travelling in a train to Nagpur in 2013.

He had informed about the theft to the Coach Attendant but it was claimed that the official was rude and used rough language and asked him to instead approach the conductor. It was claimed that the Conductor was untraceable and even the RPF or GRP personnels were not available.

A complaint was filed by him before the Delhi Consumer Forum claiming Rs. 84,450 for the loss of goods, Rs. 1 lakh on account of harassment and Rs. 20,000 towards cost of litigation. The district forum held the railways to be deficient in service and awarded Rs. 5000 as compensation to the passenger for harassment.

He then appealed the order before the State forum for enhanced compensation and the railways was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to him for the loss of articles due to negligence, harassment & mental agony suffered by him and the cost of litigation.

A revision petition was then filed by the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which dismissed his complaint, as well as the orders of the State and District forums.

Challenging the order of NCDRC, the passenger told the High Court that there was negligence and failure of duty on the part of the railway officials as the Coach Attendant refused to provide assistance, the Conductor was untraceable and no RPF or GRP personnel was available to handle the situation.

It was also submitted that such misconduct and negligence by the railway officials directly caused loss of his backpack.

On the other hand, the railways argued that the passenger carrying valuables with him, needs to be more vigilant to take care of his belongings by taking necessary safeguards by locking their bags with iron rings. It was submitted that the petitioner failed to do so, and therefore, the railways cannot be fastened with any liability on mere allegation of theft.

The Court noted that the petitioner's claim in his Consumer Complaint was mainly based on the fact that the Attendant was sleeping and was rude and the Conductor was not traceable.

It added that there was not even a whisper in the complaint that the doors of the coach were lying open due to the negligence of the Coach Attendant or Conductor or that due to the same, some unauthorized intruder entered into the coach and committed theft.

“No doubt, as per list of duties, the Conductor should ensure that the doors of the coach are locked. There is not even a whisper that the doors of the coach were lying open, which may have resulted in unauthorized intrusion by an intruder to commit theft,” the Court said.

It added: “There has to be a reasonable nexus between the commission of the theft and the negligence of duty by the Conductor and the Attendant. The mere absence of the Conductor from the coach per se may not amount to deficiency of service, in the absence of any specific allegation that he had not duly performed the duty by keeping the doors closed.”

Justice Dudeja said that there was no allegation or evidence in the present case or even an assertion in the complaint that any unauthorized person had entered the train.

“There was nothing on record to suggest that the theft could not have been carried out by some co- passenger on board. If that was so, even the presence of the Conductor in the train would have been of no help,” the Court said.

Title: SHAILENDRA JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 436

Click here to read order