The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a passenger challenging the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had rejected his claim for compensation from Indian Railways following the theft of his backpack during a train journey. The High Court held that the Railways cannot be held liable for the loss of unbooked personal luggage unless a direct nexus is established between the theft and negligence of railway personnel.
Case Background
The petitioner, Shailendra Jain, had boarded a train from New Delhi to Nagpur on 16 January 2013 with a reserved berth in a 3rd AC coach. Upon departure from Bhopal station, he discovered that his backpack—containing a laptop, camera, ATM cards, and other valuables worth ₹84,450—had been stolen. He claimed that the coach attendant was uncooperative, the conductor was missing, and there were no RPF or GRP personnel present. An FIR was registered with GRP Nagpur under Section 379 IPC.
Subsequently, he filed a complaint before the Delhi Consumer Forum seeking ₹1,00,000 for harassment and loss of property. The District Forum held the Railways deficient in service and awarded ₹5,000 for harassment and litigation expenses. On appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) enhanced the compensation to ₹1,00,000, citing gross negligence of railway officials.
The Union of India challenged the SCDRC’s order before the NCDRC, which on 29 August 2024, set aside the compensation and dismissed the original complaint. Jain then approached the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Arguments and Legal Analysis
The petitioner argued that railway officials violated the Ministry of Railways’ Notification dated 11.09.1998, which mandates conductors and attendants to ensure that coach doors remain latched during train runs and locked at night to prevent unauthorized entry. He also cited earlier decisions by the National Commission in Northern Railway vs. Balbir Singh and Union of India vs. Daya Shankar Tiwari, where similar circumstances were held to be service deficiencies.
The Railways, in response, contended that:
- There was no allegation of unauthorized entry or open doors in the original complaint.
- The stolen backpack was unregistered luggage, and under Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 and relevant tariff rules, the Railways are not liable for unbooked luggage.
- Facilities such as iron rings are provided under seats for securing personal belongings, and passengers are expected to use them.
- The petitioner failed to adduce evidence proving that he had brought the items claimed as stolen.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that no specific allegation was made in the consumer complaint about open doors or unauthorized entry leading to the theft. The Court observed:
“The mere absence of the Conductor from the coach per se may not amount to deficiency of service, in the absence of any specific allegation that he had not duly performed the duty by keeping the doors closed.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Station Superintendent vs. Surender Bhola [2023 SCC OnLine SC 741], the Court reiterated:
“If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held responsible.”
The Court concluded that there was no evidence of negligence directly causing the theft and upheld the NCDRC’s decision. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the NCDRC’s decision and reaffirmed that passengers are primarily responsible for securing their personal belongings during train travel, especially when not declared or booked with the Railways.
