SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member
Urmila Chadha and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Indian Railways – Respondent
Revision Petition Nos.1490 and 2321 of 2018
With IA/10142/2018 (Condonation of delay);
IA/9960/2022 (Early hearing);
IA/12636/2024 (Directions)
Decided on 6.8.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners in RP Nos. 1490 & 2321 of 2018:Ms. Shweta Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent in RP Nos. 1490 & 2321 of 2018:Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Theft in Train cannot be considered deficiency in service on part of Railways.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Railways – Deficiency of service – Theft of Bag containing cash and jewellery from Coach – State Commission allowed appeal of Complainants and enhanced awarded amount from Rs.15,000 to Rs.1,25,000/- – Theft in Train cannot be considered deficiency in service on part of Railways – Order passed by State Commission and order passed by District Forum set aside – Revision Petition filed by Indian Railways allowed and Revision Petition filed by Complainants dismissed. (Paras 14 and 15)

Result: Revision Petitions partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member.—This order shall decide both Revision Petitions viz. RP No. 1490 of 2018 filed by Ms. Urmila Chadha and Mr. Sushil Chadha, the Complainants and R.P. No. 2321 of 2018 filed by Indian Railways, Opposite Party (OP) under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) arising from the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“State Commission”) in FA No. 362/2015, wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal of the Complainants and enhanced the awarded amount from Rs.15,000 to Rs.1,25,000 and directed OP to pay the amount to the Complainants within 45 days of this order.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint before the District Forum.

3. As per report of the Registry, there is delay in filing of both the present Revision Petitions. For the reasons stated in the I.A. Nos. 10142 and 15346 of 2018 filed in both the parties, the delay is condoned.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainants, are that on 18.11.2012, the Complainants boarded Train No. 12649 from Yashwantpur, Bangalore to Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi, travelling in Class-2A, Coach No. HA-1, with reservations for Seat Nos. 8 and 10. It is alleged that during the intervening night of 19.11.2012 and 20.11.2012, Complainant No.1, Mrs. Urmila Chadha, woke up and visited washroom. Upon returning, she discovered that her bag containing jewellery and cash amounting to Rs.16,000 was stolen. The Complainants immediately sought assistance from the railway staff, including Shri V.K. Sharma, Conductor of the Head Quarters, Jhansi, and lodged a complaint regarding the theft. Subsequently, an FIR was registered at Hazrat Nizamuddin Police Station, New Delhi, on 23.11.2012 vide FIR No. 20120416. Despite repeated inquiries, no information was provided until 29.12.2012, when they were informed that the missing small bag was recovered on 20.11.2012 and was lying with the Gonda Railway Police Station. Upon visiting Jhansi, they found the bag was ransacked, with all valuables missing. The bag was returned to them after submitting a written request to the SHO, Gonda Railway Police. The Complainants alleged a financial loss of .5 lakhs and submitted a claim to the Railway Board, which went unanswered, leading them to file a complaint before the District Forum seeking Rs.5 lakhs for the loss and Rs.3 lakhs for harassment and mental agony.

5. On notice, the Opposite Party (OP) filed a written version denying any liability and contended that no prior notice was served upon them regarding the alleged incident. It further argued that Complainant No.1 was negligent in not handing over the bag containing valuables to her husband, Complainant No.2, who was travelling with her, before proceeding to the toilet. The OP also cast doubt on the complainants’ claim regarding the contents of the bag, pointing out that no bills or receipts were provided to substantiate the value of the stolen jewellery.

6. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 02.03.2015, allowed the complaint with the following relevant order:

“Such incidents in running train amounts to negligence in service provided by the Railways. The complainant has put a highly inflated claim for loss of credit cards key and other documents etc. and we, therefore, award a compensation of Rs.15,000 to the complainant for harassment and mental agony caused to them inclusive of litigation expenses.

If the compliance is not made within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; OP will also pay interest @ 12% for the delayed period.”

7. While the OP did not challenge the said District Forum order, dissatisfied by the District Forum order dated 02.03.2015, the Complainants filed F.A. No.362/2015 for enhancement of compensation and the learned State Commission vide order dated 19.12.2017 allowed the Complainants. Appeal and enhanced the compensation as follows:

“10. We ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top