Railways are not responsible for the losses due to the theft

The Supreme Judgment of Delhi has ruled that the railway could not be responsible for the loss of theft of a passenger’s affiliation unless his officials were negligent.

“… a passenger who transported his own luggage in the compartment is responsible for his safe maintenance, and railways are not responsible for any loss in it because of theft, if it is not theft due to negligence or misdemeanor Rail officials, ” Justice Ravinder Duded said.

The court rejected the petition filed by the man, a backpack containing a laptop, camera, charger, glasses and ATM cards, were stolen when he was traveling to Nagpur in 2013.

He reported the theft of the coach, but argued that the official was rough and used a rough language and asked him to approach the conductor instead. It was claimed that the conductor was not monitored, and even RPF or GRP staff are not available.

The complaint was filed by him before the Delhi Consumer Forum, which required Rs. 84 450 per loss goods, Rs. 1 varnish at the expense of harassment and Rs. 20,000 to the cost of lawsuits. The District Forum held railways to be insufficient in service and awarded Rs. 5000 as a passenger compensation for harassment.

He then appealed the order before the State Forum for increased compensation, and the railways were aimed at paying Rs. 1,00 000 to him for the loss Articles due to negligence, harassment and mental agony have undergone it and the cost of lawsuits.

The application for review was then filed with the National Consumer Commission (NCDRC), which rejected his complaint, as well as orders of state and district forums.

In challenging the NCDRC order, the passenger stated that the railway officials were the negligence and inability of employees, as the coach refused to assist, the conductor was not worried, and no RPF or GRP staff was available to resolve the situation.

It was also stated that such misconduct and negligence of railway officials directly caused the loss of his backpack.

On the other hand, the railways claimed that a passenger transporting valuable things should be more vigilant to take care of their things by taking Required guarantees, closing their bags with iron rings. It was stated that the applicant did not do it, and therefore the railways could not be fixed with any responsibility for the simple accusation of theft.

The Court noted that the claim against the applicant in his complaint against the consumer was mainly based on the fact that the accompanying man was asleep and was rude and the conductor was not traced.

He added that there was not even a whisper in the complaint that the coach’s doors were open because of the negligence of a coach or conductor, or because of the same, some unauthorized attacker entered the coach and committed theft.

“Undoubtedly, according to the list of duties, the conductor must ensure that the coach’s door is closed. There is not even a whisper that the coach’s door was open, which may have led to an unauthorized invasion of the attacker to commit theft,” the court said.

He added: “Must be a reasonable connection between the theft Commission and the negligence of the obligation with the conductor and the accompanying person. It is the absence of a conductor The coach himself may not adhere to the shortage of service, in the absence of any specific statements that he did not properly perform the duty, keeping the door closed. “

The Dudadja justice stated that there was no accusation or evidence in this case or even a complaint in a complaint that any unauthorized person entered the train.

“There was nothing that indicates that the theft could not be on board. If it were, even the presence of the conductor on the train would not help,” the court said.

Title: Shailendra Jain V. Union of India

Quote: 2025 Livelaw (Del) 436

Click here to read the order