Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Against Railways For Theft Of Passenger Belongings [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking compensation for the theft of personal belongings during train travel, reaffirming that the Railways cannot be held responsible unless negligence by railway officials is proven.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja made critical observations regarding the responsibility of passengers to safeguard their personal belongings while traveling on trains.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Compensation Plea Over Stolen Train Luggage

The court addressed a case involving a petition filed by Shailendra Jain under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The court noted, “This is a petition seeking to set aside the order dated 29.08.2024, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 2272/2023, titled as ‘Union of India Vs. Shailendra Jain.’”

Addressing the specific circumstances of the case, the court observed, “When the train left Bhopal Station, the petitioner discovered that his backpack—containing a laptop, camera, charger, eyeglasses, and ATM cards issued by SBI and PNB, worth Rs. 84,450/-—was stolen.”

Railways Not Responsible for Theft Without Negligence, Rules Court

The court highlighted the legal position regarding the responsibility for passenger belongings, stating, “It is an undisputed position, as also noted in the impugned order by the National Commission, that the backpack was neither booked nor registered with the Railways. Admittedly, the goods in the backpack were not declared prior to the journey.”

In its ruling, the court also referred to Station Superintendent vs. Surender Bhola and observed, “Drawing from the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is abundantly clear that a passenger carrying his own luggage in the compartment is himself responsible for its safekeeping, and the Railways are not liable for any loss due to theft unless it is a case of theft on account of negligence or misconduct by railway officials.”

The court emphasized the need for evidence linking railway staff negligence to the theft, noting, “The mere absence of the conductor from the coach per se may not amount to deficiency in service, in the absence of any specific allegation that he had failed to perform his duty by not keeping the doors closed.”

The petition was dismissed, with the court finding no perversity or impropriety in the judgment dated 29.08.2024 passed by the NCDRC.

Mr. Aditya Jain, Mr. Desam Sudhakar Reddy, and Ms. Sarika S., Advocates, appeared for the petitioner, while Mr. Rajesh Kumar, along with Mr. Aakash Kumar Singh, Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, and Mr. Yash Narain, Advocates, appeared for the respondent.

Case Title: Shailendra Jain vs. Union of India

[Read Judgment]