Passenger Responsible For The Safe Keeping Of Their Luggage: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant stated that he boarded a train from New Delhi to Nagpur with a reserved e-ticket from Indian Railways. After departing from Bhopal Station, he discovered his backpack, containing a laptop, camera, charger, eyeglasses, and ATM cards valued at Rs. 84,450, had been stolen. He reported the theft to the coach attendant but was met with rudeness and directed to the conductor, who was untraceable. There was no railway police or GRP personnel present. Upon arriving in Nagpur, he filed an FIR for theft. The complainant alleged a deficiency in service by the Railways, claiming that the theft occurred due to unauthorized passengers being allowed in reserved compartments, leading to a security lapse. He sought compensation of Rs. 84,450 for his loss, Rs. 1,00,000 on account of harassment and Rs. 20,000 towards the cost of litigation. The complaint filed a complaint before the District Forum, which allowed the complaint and directed the Railways to to pay Rs. 5000 for the loss of articles due to negligence, harassment & mental agonysuffered along with the cost of litigation. Dissatisfied, the complainant appealed before the State Commission of Delhi, which enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000. Consequently, the Railways filed a revision petition before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Railways

The Railways argued that the judgment was rendered without adequately hearing all parties, raising due process concerns. Although a compensation of Rs. 5,000 was awarded by the District Forum, the Railways offered this amount as goodwill, but it was returned undelivered. The complainant failed to provide crucial details to support his claim, including evidence of unauthorized passengers boarding the train or whether he secured his backpack. His claim of Rs. 84,450 contradicted his FIR statement of Rs. 73,500, undermining its credibility. Additionally, he did not prove the loss of two ATM cards by showing he reported the loss to the banks. Overall, the complainant did not demonstrate that any theft occurred due to the Railways' negligence, and thus the Railways argued that the judgment should be reconsidered and set aside.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the key issue is whether there was negligence or deficiency of service by Railways regarding the alleged theft of the complainant's backpack. To establish liability under Section 100 of the Railways Act, the complainant needed to prove that the backpack was registered with the Railways or that there was negligence by railway officials leading to its loss. It is undisputed that the backpack was not booked or declared as part of the travel, meaning the Railways cannot be held responsible for its safety. The complainant's claim that unauthorized passengers may have entered reserved compartments lacked evidence, as demonstrated in Union of India v. Ramniwas, where mere allegations without supporting evidence were deemed insufficient. Furthermore, in The General Manager, SER & Ors. v. Swapna Mukherjee, the commission noted that a passenger is responsible for the safe keeping of their luggage unless negligence by the Railways is established. The complainant failed to show that the backpack was present in the compartment or that any railway staff were negligent. Therefore, the Railways were not liable for the alleged theft, and the lower courts erred in assigning responsibility without adequate evidence of security lapses or negligence.

The commission concluded that the findings and orders from the District Forum and State Commission were unsustainable, leading to the dismissal of the complaint and the revision petition being allowed, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: Union of India Vs. Shailendra Jain

Case Number: R.P. No. 2272/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order