Railways Not Liable For Theft Incidents, Passengers Must Be Vigilant, M.P. State Commission Allows Western-Central Railways' Appeal

Brief Facts:

The Complainant and his wife were travelling in the AC-2 coach of train no.5009-Chitrakoot Express on 11.12.2008. The Complainant placed his luggage beneath the berth and slept near Bhimsen station. At around 5 am, the Complainant heard someone questioning the ownership of a suitcase, only to discover that his suitcase was missing. Upon reaching Satna railway station, he found the conductor in possession of the suitcase, but some of the contents inside the suitcase were missing. The Complainant filed an FIR at GRP Police Katni, alleging negligence on the part of the Railways, arguing that the theft of the articles from his suitcase occurred due to the Railways' negligence. Consequently, the Complainant also filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna, Madhya Pradesh (“District Commission”).

In response, the Railways contended that there was a misjoinder of proper parties. They contended that the incident took place between Bhimsen to Satna Railway Station, falling under Northern Central Railway, Allahabad. Citing Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, the Railways asserted that they are not responsible for losses if the luggage is not booked.

The District Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, directing Western Central Railway Division to jointly and severally pay Rs.50,000/- within one month to the Complainant. The Western Central Railways, dissatisfied with the decision, appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (“State Commission”), contending that the District Commission overlooked the Complainant's failure to report the incident to the TTE, Guard, or coach attendant. The Western Central Railway argued that there was a lack of evidence proving negligence or deficiency in service on their part, urging the setting aside of the order passed by the District Commission.

Observations by the Commission:

The State Commission noted that the Complainant failed to specify the origin and destination of his journey on the said train. The complaint merely mentioned that he slept at Bhimsen station and found his suitcase at Satna station, with the articles inside stolen. Notably, there was no indication that the complainant secured his suitcase with chains and locks beneath the berth. Further, it observed that the Complainant did not level any accusations against the railway authorities regarding the entry of unauthorized passengers or the absence of railway staff or RPF personnel in the coach. Consequently, the State Commission held that the Complainant didn't substantiate the claims of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the railways.

Furthermore, the State Commission also observed that the Complainant alleged the theft of goods valued at Rs. 2,25,000/- but didn't produce any authentic bills for these articles. It held that the District Commission allowed the complaint without a factual basis or supporting evidence, disregarding the absence of proof for the Complainant's contentions. Further, it also held that the Railways cannot be held responsible for the stolen luggage when the Complainant himself wasn't vigilant. It referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Station Superintendent & Anr Vs Surender Bhola III (2023) CPJ 11 (SC) where it held that the railways cannot be held liable for theft if the passenger is unable to protect their belongings.

Consequently, the State Commission set aside the District Commission's order and the complaint was dismissed on its merits.

Case Title: Western Central Railway Division Vs Rajendra Kumar Agrawal & Another

Case No.: FIRST APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2012

Advocate for the Appellant: Ajay Dubey

Advocate for the Respondent: None