2023 Supreme(SC) 895

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.
Station Superintendent & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Surender Bhola – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.7116 of 2017
Decided On : 15-06-2023

The responsibility for protecting personal belongings lies with the passenger and does not constitute a deficiency in service by the Railways.

Headnote:DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - Consumer Claim for Theft on Train - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g) - The court discussed the Consumer Protection Act, particularly sections 2(1)(g) defining "deficiency in service," section 2(1)(o) defining "service," section 2(1)(r) defining "unfair trade practice," and section 2(1)(g) defining "consumer." The court emphasized that the theft of a passenger's belongings cannot be considered a deficiency in service by the Railways, as it is the passenger's responsibility to protect their own belongings.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent claimed reimbursement for Rs.1 lakh stolen while traveling on a train. The District Consumer Forum awarded the claim, but subsequent appeal courts dismissed it.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the theft did not constitute a deficiency in service by the Railways and allowed the appeal, setting aside previous orders.

Issues:

Whether theft on a train constitutes a deficiency in service by the Railways.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that the Railways cannot be held responsible for theft if the passenger fails to protect their belongings.

Final Decision:

The appeal was allowed, and previous orders were set aside.