##PAGE1##

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

CWP-5361-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision:-6.4.2026

Union of India and others … Petitioners

Versus

K.S. Bhatti and another ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI

Present:- Mr. Narender K. Vashist, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners - UOI.

*****

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners – Union of India and others assail order dated 20.8.2025

(Annexure P-1) passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NCDRC’), whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioners assailing order dated 16.1.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SCDRC’) and order dated 14.7.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the DCDRC’), has been dismissed.

2. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are that

respondent No.1/complainant – K.S. Bhatti alongwith his wife had boarded train No.14217, Unchahar Express on 16.4.2013 from Allahabad so as to go

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.04.10 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at

Chandigarh

CWP-5361-2026 (O&M) ( 2 )

to Chandigarh. They were occupying berth Nos.13 & 15 in AC -2 Tier coach (coach No.A2). However, during the journey two of their suitcases were stolen from the train in respect of which respondent No.1 lodged an FIR at Chandni Chowk, Railway Station, Delhi on 17.4.2013. Subsequently, he filed a consumer complaint before the DCDRC, which was accepted vide order dated 14.7.2016 (Annexure P-4) and the respondents (petitioners herein) were directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and another amount of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant (respondent No.1 herein). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the SCDRC, which was accepted vide order dated 16.1.2017 (Annexure P-6) and the following relief was granted to respondent

No.1:

“….. The opposite parties/respondents (Union of India and Ors.)

are jointly and severally directed as under:

(i) To pay Rs.39,000/- referred to above to the complainant, alongwith interest @ 8% p.a., from the date of theft i.e.

17.04.2013.

(ii) To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.10,000/-

for mental agony & physical harassment caused to the complainant and deficiency in providing service.

(iii) To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the Forum.

(iv) The awarded amount shall be paid by the opposite parties/respondents to the complainant/appellant, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr. no.(i) shall carry penal interest @10% p.a. from 17.04.2013 instead of 8% p.a. and the amounts mentioned

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.04.10 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at

Chandigarh

CWP-5361-2026 (O&M) ( 3 )

at sr. nos.(ii) and (iii) shall carry interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing the consumer complaint before the

Forum, till realization.”

3. The petitioners assailed the aforesaid order dated 16.1.2017 (Annexure P-6)

by way of filing a revision petition before the NCDRC, which has been dismissed by the NCDRC vide impugned order dated 20.8.2025 (Annexure

P-1), which is being assailed before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order,

submitted that the Consumer Fora fell in error in accepting the claim of respondent No.1 and that the Railways can be held responsible only in case of a “booked luggage” whereas in the instant case respondent No.1 had not booked the luggage. Learned counsel, in this context, referred to Section 100

of Railways Act, 1989, which reads as under:

“100. Responsibility as carrier of