Railways are not liable for theft of unbooked luggage; the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish deficiency in service.

Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.

This appeal by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant), is directed against the order dated 4.9.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.1, Bhopal (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No.775/2016, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaints filed by him.

2. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that on 10.7.2016, the complainant travelled from Habibganj to Rewa in A/c two tier of train No. 12185, Rewanchal Express. It is alleged that due to lack of security of Railways, some anti-social elements stolen his VIP suitcase, along with Rs.3,00,000/- in cash, two watches, I-phone etc. Therefore, alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties-Railways, the aforesaid complaint was filed by the complainant seeking relief.

3. Respondents-Railways resisted the complaint and in their reply before the District Commission submitted that the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.34738-34739/2012 order dated 2.7.2013 has settled the principle that under Section-100 of Indian Railways Act , the Railway is not responsible for the luggage which not booked, as the Railway has taken fare for the travel only. The Railway is not responsible for the security of complainant’s luggage. It has been further stated that according to Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No. 26 Part-1 Rule- 506-2, passengers are responsible for security of their luggage and Railway Authorities are not liable for any loss or damage. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of Railways and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence filed by the parties, dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the Railways has argued that the impugned order is in accordance with the evidence and settled principle of law. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for Railways and perused the record.

7. It is not in dispute that the complainant was travelling in train No. 12185-Rewanchal Express on 10.7.2016 from Habibganj to Rewa in A/c 2 tier. The documents on record indicate that the complaint filed a FIR before the GRP Police Station, Rewa. However, in that FIR there is no mention that any unauthorised passenger was travelling in the coach. Even in the FIR the fact that allegedly the compliant was carrying Rs.3 lakhs in cash has not been mentioned. The complainant has failed to prove the identity of articles allegedly stolen. Even any receipt to show that he owned the articles has been filed. The complainants have also not proved that unauthorised persons were travelling when the incident of theft occurred. Therefore, any deficiency on the part of Railways is not found to be proved.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Station Superintendent & Anr. vs. Surender Bhola III (2023) CPJ 1A (SC) has held:

“We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way deficiency in service by the Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held liable.”

9. In such circumstances, when the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service against Railways, therefore, in view of recent pronouncements of Apex Court, we are of the considered view that the District Commission has not erred in dismissing the complaint.