The main legal point established in the judgment is that the railway administration's liability in the case of theft is governed by the Railway Act 1989, and the court must consider evidence of negligence or misconduct to attribute responsibility.

ORDER

Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member - By its order dated 25.8.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set aside this Commission's order dated 5.4.2006, by which notice was issued in a Revision Petition filed by the Petition (Union of India and Others) limited to the award of interest and quantum of compensation. The Apex Court directed that after service of notice, the revision petition shall be disposed of by the National Commission on merits, in accordance with the law after taking into consideration all the points raised therein. This revision petition has come up before us in compliance with the above order.

2. The Respondent in this case is Shri Vishal Kumar Dev who was the original complainant before the District Forum, wherein he filed a complaint alleging deficiency of service against the Union of India through General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata and Ors. (Petitioner in this case). The version of the Respondent is that he along with his wife (Respondent No. 2) and his one year old daughter (Respondent No. 3) had visited his hometown Dehradun to celebrate the first birthday of his daughter. In that function, the father of the Respondent after withdrawing Rs. 50,000 from his GPF account had gifted this amount to his grand daughter for investment in a 21 year policy to be utilized later for her higher education. For their return journey, the Respondent No. 1, booked seats in the Rajdhani Express Train No. 2422 on 24.6.2002 from New Delhi to Balasore where he was posted as District Magistrate/Collector. Respondents were carrying cash worth Rs. 50,000 and jewellery worth Rs. 76,150 which was kept in a black bag in a suitcase. When the train left Kanpur Station, Respondent No. 1 before going to sleep, put his wallet containing Rs. 1,500 and mobile phone in the said black bag and kept the bag in the innermost chamber of a suitcase and put the suitcase under the lower berth. On waking up at 7.00 a.m., next morning Respondents were shocked to find that the black bag was missing. Despite searching the entire cabin, the bag could not be located. Respondent No. 1, therefore, went in search of the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) and other railway personnel. On enquiry, he was told that the TTE was sitting in the 1st class AC coach. He, therefore, went to TTE to lodge a complaint about the theft. The TTE's response was quite indifferent and he did not come forward to take immediate action, for example, ordering a search of the railway staff on duty in the train, who could have accessed and stolen the valuables. Ultimately, the Train Superintendent asked the Respondent to fill up a form regarding the theft and an FIR was lodged in the next station i.e. Howrah. The Respondent further stated that he had found the coach attendant was sleeping in a passenger's berth at 10.30 p.m. and no railway personnel including RPF were present to attend to the passengers and to ensure their security in the night. Respondent No. 1 lodged a formal complaint in the complaint book of the Train Supervisor. Since Respondents sustained loss of property worth Rs. 1,46,000 and were subjected to humiliation and harassment in running from one end of the train to the other, trying to plead with the Railway staff to take suitable urgent action in respect of their complaint, they were constrained to file a complaint before the District Forum. In support of their case, Respondents also filed before the District Forum various documents including a copy of the FIR filed by them, affidavit of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the affidavit of the father of the Respondent No. 1 as also one by Mr. Partha Pratim Patnaik who was a co-passenger in the Rajdhani Express.

3. Petitioner in their version have denied that there was any deficiency in service. According to the Petitioner, the matter pertaining to security of goods in trains is governed by Section 100 of the Railway, Act 1989 which reads as follows:

"Responsibilities as carrier of luggage A railway administra