1. Theft of cash from passenger's person during train travel — Claim for reimbursement against railway administration. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
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
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Advocate, Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Advocate, Ms. Sweksha, Advocate, Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advocate, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Advocate, Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Advocate, Ms. Sweksha, Advocate, Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advocate, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
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.Legal Category Hierarchy
-
consumer law
-
deficiency in service
-
transportation services
- railway services (Para 5)
-
transportation services
-
deficiency in service
Table of Contents
2. Whether theft of personal belongings from a passenger's person constitutes a deficiency in service by the railway administration. (Para 3 )
3. Theft of personal belongings not constituting deficiency in service — Responsibility of passenger to protect own belongings. (Para 5 )
4. Theft of personal belongings from a passenger's person does not amount to a deficiency in service by the railway administration. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal allowed — Orders of the District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission set aside. (Para 6 )
6. Does the theft of personal belongings from a passenger's person constitute a deficiency in service by the railway administration?
No. The court held that theft is not a deficiency in service by the Railways, as passengers are responsible for protecting their own belongings. (Para 5 )
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Rajan Kumar Chaurasia, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Despite service of notice, no one appears for the respondent although the matter is pending for the last eight years.
3. The respondent raised a claim before the District Consumer Forum stating that while he was travelling in a train and was carrying Rs.1 lakh in cash in a belt tied around his waist, the same got stolen and as such the Railways should reimburse the said loss.
4. The District Consumer Forum allowed the same by awarding Rs.1 lakh to be paid by the appellant(s). The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the appeal(s).
5. We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way a deficiency in service by the Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held responsible.
6. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and the District Consumer Forum.
