Consumer Commission Fines Railway for Theft in Reserved Coach

New Delhi: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathankot, has held Northern Railway liable for the theft of a passenger's gold ornaments and cash from a reserved AC coach during a train journey, rejecting the Railway's defence that it could not be held responsible for unbooked luggage under Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989.

A Bench of Sh. Kulwinder Singh Pannu, President, and Sh. Raj Kumar Shukla, Member, partly allowed a complaint filed by Kalu Ram and Suman Yadav, directing the Railways to pay Rs.70,000 towards the stolen articles along with interest, besides Rs.10,000 for mental harassment.

The complainants, along with their child, were travelling in Coach B7 of Rajdhani Express Train No.12423 from Tinsukia Junction to New Delhi on 14th December 2021, having booked three seats for Rs.13,280. Complainant No.2's handbag, containing a gold Mangal Sutra weighing 15 grams worth Rs.65,000, her SBI passbook and about Rs.5,000 in cash, was found missing while the train was en route, shortly after it reached Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Railway Station. Finding no coach attendant available, the complainants informed an RPF employee and the TTE on duty. On reaching New Delhi, they got a Zero FIR registered, being FIR No.0403 dated 16th December 2021, which was transmitted to GRP Kanpur Central Police Station. When repeated requests to the Railway authorities to trace the stolen articles went unanswered, the complainants approached the Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking Rs.70,000 for the stolen items with 24% interest, and Rs.5 lakh as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

The Railway, while admitting the journey, denied that the theft had come to the notice of the on-duty station master and denied that any complaint had been lodged with the SHO, GRP, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Railway Station. It relied on the Supreme Court's order dated 2nd July 2013 in Vijay Kumar Jain v. Union of India to contend that the Railway cannot be held responsible for unbooked luggage, and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

Examining the Railway's own annexures filed with its written statement, the Commission found that they in fact disclosed that an RPF Escort party, headed by a named Head Constable, had attended to the complainants on the train itself on the night of the incident, and that the SHO, RPF had separately confirmed contacting the complainants the same day over the Railway helpline and checking CCTV footage at the station. This directly contradicted the Railway's own pleaded case that the station master had no information about the theft. The Commission held:

“Once, the railway admits that its RPF Escort received the complaint it cannot simultaneously contend that no information was available with the railway administration.”

Counsel for the complainants relied on the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision in Indian Railway & 2 Ors. v. Uma Aggarwal, Revision Petition No.1099 of 2020, decided on 25th July 2023, which had referred to a Railway Board letter dated 11th September 1998 prescribing duties of the train conductor in AC and first-class coaches, including keeping coach doors latched during the run of the train, keeping vestibule doors locked between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. to prevent unauthorised entry, remaining vigilant against intruders, and attending to complaints of theft by lodging an FIR with the GRP. The Commission also referred to Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Agarwalla, where a TTE was held negligent for not latching coach doors at night; General Manager, South Central Railways v. Jagannath Mohan Shinde, holding that Section 100 of the Railways Act does not shield the Railway once negligence is proved; General Manager, South Central Railways v. R.V. Kumar, 2005 SCC OnLine NCDRC 222, on the Railway's liability for hand-carried luggage where negligence is shown and the passenger has taken reasonable care; and Station Master, Indian Railways v. Sunil Kumar, holding the Railway responsible for the safety of passengers and hand-held baggage in a reserved coach against unauthorised intruders.

Extracting Sections 97 and 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, the Commission noted that Section 100 excludes Railway liability for loss of luggage unless it is proved that the loss was due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway or its servants. Applying this test, the Commission held that the cumulative circumstances of the case, namely the immediate report to the RPF, the Railway's contradictory stand on notice of the theft, the unrebutted absence of a coach attendant, and the Railway's failure to produce the attendant's duty roster despite it being exclusively in its possession, warranting an adverse inference, together established a deficiency in service on the part of the Railway.

The Commission accordingly partly allowed the complaint, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.70,000 towards the value of the stolen articles, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation, along with a further Rs.10,000 for mental harassment and agony. The amount was directed to be paid within one month of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the complainants would be entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the entire amount from the date of filing till realisation.

Case Title: Kalu Ram and Another v. Northern Railway and Others | C.C. No.139 of 2022 (New Complaint No. DC/662/RBT/CC/126 of 2023) | District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathankot