Railways liable for theft in train

The National Commission castigated the Railways in delaying the payment needlessly

When someone is travelling by train on a particular sector, and there is a theft, is the consumer allowed to file a complaint from the place the ticket was bought, or will he be forced to file it from the area where the theft occurred, or it is discovered? This issue has been dealt with by the National Commission in a recent judgement.

Sunil Kumar, a resident of Fatehpur, along with his wife, children and mother had reserved accommodation for travelling on Coimbatore-Jaipur train number 12969. While they were travelling on June 21, 2015, some unknown persons entered the train and stole valuables belonging to the family. Kumar immediately lodged a first information report (FIR) with the police.

Jehangir B Gai

Sunil also lodged a complaint before the Sikar District Forum, which was contested by the Railways. The Forum held the Railways liable to pay Rs 51,850 towards the loss. One month's time was given for compliance; else the amount would carry 9 per cent interest from the date of the complaint. In addition, Rs 500 was awarded as compensation and another Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses. The Railways challenged this order before the Rajasthan State Commission, but the appeal was dismissed.

The Railways approached the National Commission through a revision petition. They questioned the jurisdiction of the Sikar District Forum, contending that the theft had occurred on the Coimbatore-Jaipur sector. The objection was trashed, holding that the complaint could be filed at Sikar where the ticket was booked. It then contended that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act as jurisdiction would exclusively vest before the Railway Claim Tribunal. Rejecting this, the National Commission observed the provisions relied on by the Railways were in respect of carriage of goods, which would imply commercial goods entrusted to the Railways Administration for carriage. These provisions would not apply to personal effects and baggage carried by a passenger. It held that the consumer forum had the authority to adjudicate the dispute.

The National Commission considered the entry of unauthorised persons in a reserved compartment to be a deficiency in service. It noted that the law was well settled in the case of Union of India versus Ajay Kumar Agarwalla where it had been laid down that the Railways are responsible for the theft of luggage from a running train. So it castigated the Railways for dragging on with the matter by filing an appeal and then a revision to harass the consumer.

By its order of October 22, 2018, delivered by the Bench of S M Kantikar and Dinesh Singh, the National Commission dismissed the Railways’ revision petition and held that the order allowing the complaint was justified.

(The writer is a consumer activist)