Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2572
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER, DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER
Manju Chaurasia – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, East Coast Railway – Respondent
NC/REVISION PETITION NO. 2381 of 2024
For the Appellant: Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Kumar Chandel
Railways are not liable for theft of passenger luggage unless negligence or misconduct is established; responsibility for luggage security rests with the passenger.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Revision petition challenging order in appeal regarding theft of luggage on railway - Complainant traveling in reserved coach alleges theft by an unauthorized person - Railway contended that liability exists only if there is negligence proved - District Forum initially granted compensation which was overturned by State Commission - The Commission found no negligence or misconduct of the Railway staff causing theft - (Paras 1, 5, 6, 15, 17)
(B) Liability - The railways are not liable for theft unless negligence or misconduct by its staff is established - Passenger responsibility for the security of their luggage emphasized - (Paras 9, 10, 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
The complainant’s handbag containing valuables was stolen while traveling in a reserved sleeper class train. The complainant sought compensation alleging negligence in protecting her belongings but the railway contended the loss was at her own risk due to failure to book the luggage.
Findings of Court:
There is no evidence proving negligence on part of railways. The findings of the State Commission upholding the appeal were correct and reasonable, dismissing the revision petition.
Issues: Whether the railway was negligent in ensuring the safety of the complainant's belongings while traveling in a reserved coach?
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the railway's liability for theft is conditional upon proof of negligence or misconduct. Mere theft does not equate to a deficiency in service unless such negligence is established.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding luggage theft while traveling in a reserved coach. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. initial rulings on negligence and compensation by the district forum. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding railway responsibility and the role of negligence. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal observations on prior cases establishing burden of proof for negligence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final decision affirming lack of railway liability without proof of negligence. (Para 15 , 17) |
ORDER
DR. SADHNA SHANKER. MEMBER
1. This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) in challenge to the order dated 06.06.2024 in First Appeal No. 293 of 2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (in short, the ‘State Commission’) arising out of an order dated 13.10.2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in consumer complaint no. 1251 of 2018.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 03.05.2018 the complainant was travelling from Puri to Durg with her two minor sons, in a reserved air condition sleeper class in train no. 18425, operated from Zone Sambalpur (Orissa) of East Coast Railway. As it was night, the complainant and her children were resting in their reserved seats after having food etc. It is alleged that when she woke up at 3.50 a.m. she found that her handbag kept with her was stolen by an unknown thief near Sambalpur. The complainant informed the coach attendant and the TTE accompanying her and lodged a report with GRP Titlagarh, respondent no.
3. It is alleged that the said handbag contained four tolas of gold necklace, three gold rings (five grams each), gold bangles, Rs. 20,000/0- (rupees twenty thousand) cash and SBI AMT card, mobile phone of Redmi Company, Voter ID card and silver anklets and toe rings worth Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lack) in total. It is further alleged that the complainant contacted the respondents several times but the problem was not resolved.
3. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission, seeking compensation of Rs. 3 lakh with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and Rs. 1 lakh and advocate’s fee.
4. The respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘railway’) contested the complaint by filing written statement stating that the railway is responsible for taking the passenger safely to the destination and if the passenger travels with expensive luggage, then he travels at his own risk and the railway is not responsible for any theft or loss. It was further stated that the complainant had neither booked in the parcel nor booking receipt was obtained from the booking officer. Therefore, the railways department is not responsible for theft of the luggage or any other incident. As per Rule 1101 of Indian Railway Commercial Manual Chapter xi booking of certain Valuable articles as mentioned in para 1 of schedule II of the railway (extent of monetary liability and prescription of percentage charge) rules, 1990 if a passenger is travelling with valuable luggage, then it is necessary to declare it. Otherwise, as per Section 103(2) of the Railway Act and Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989 , if the booking (reservation) of any goods is not done by the passenger along with the ticket, then the Railway cannot be held responsible or liable for the theft or destruction of such goods at that time. It was further stated that besides this, the railway warns the passengers by putting up advertisements at various places that the passengers should protect their luggage themselves and the passengers are instructed to take proper precautions during the journey. It was further stated that there is no information about what luggage the applicant was carrying with her while travelling was given to respondents. It was further stated that the District Commission did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case
