The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Indian Railways cannot be held responsible for the theft of a passenger's belongings unless there is direct negligence or misconduct by railway staff.
“...a passenger, carrying his own luggage with him in compartment, is himself responsible for its safe keeping and Railways are not liable for any loss therein due to theft unless it is a case of theft on account of negligence or misconduct of the railway officials,”
— Justice Ravinder Dudeja, Delhi High Court
Read also: Lawyers Must Guide Clients Towards Resolution, Not Fuel Matrimonial Allegations: Delhi High Court
The ruling came after the Court dismissed a petition filed by a passenger whose backpack was stolen during a train journey to Nagpur in 2013. The bag reportedly contained valuables like a laptop, camera, charger, eye glasses, and ATM cards.
Background of the Case
After discovering the theft, the passenger informed the Coach Attendant. However, he alleged that the attendant responded rudely and directed him to speak with the Conductor. He further claimed that the Conductor was not traceable and no RPF (Railway Protection Force) or GRP (Government Railway Police) personnel were available to help.
The passenger filed a complaint before the Delhi Consumer Forum, demanding:
- ₹84,450 for the loss of items,
- ₹1,00,000 for mental harassment, and
- ₹20,000 as litigation costs.
Read also: Delhi Court Halts Lower Court's Order for Further Probe Against Kapil Mishra in Riots Case
The District Consumer Forum found the Railways deficient in service and awarded ₹5,000 as compensation for harassment.
Not satisfied with the amount, the complainant approached the State Consumer Forum, which increased the compensation. The State Forum ordered the Railways to pay ₹1,00,000, citing negligence, mental agony, and litigation costs.
In response, the Railways filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which dismissed the complaint and also set aside the decisions of the State and District Forums.
Read also: Delhi High Court Flags Surge in GST Cases; Directs Deployment of Officers for Swift Resolution
The passenger then challenged the NCDRC’s decision in the Delhi High Court, claiming negligence by railway staff. He argued:
- The Coach Attendant refused to help.
- The Conductor was missing.
- There was no security presence (RPF/GRP) in the coach.
- These failures amounted to negligence that directly led to the theft.
However, the Railways countered this by stating that passengers are expected to safeguard their own belongings, especially valuable items. They highlighted that the complainant failed to take basic precautions like locking the luggage with iron rings, and that mere claims of theft cannot make Railways liable.
The High Court carefully reviewed the facts and the complaint. It pointed out that the main accusations were about the Conductor being untraceable and the Attendant behaving rudely. There was no mention in the complaint about the coach doors being left open or any unauthorized entry due to staff negligence.
“No doubt, as per list of duties, the Conductor should ensure that the doors of the coach are locked. There is not even a whisper that the doors of the coach were lying open, which may have resulted in unauthorized intrusion by an intruder to commit theft,”
— Delhi High Court
The Court emphasized the need to establish a clear connection between the theft and negligence of railway staff.
“There has to be a reasonable nexus between the commission of the theft and the negligence of duty by the Conductor and the Attendant. 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.”
— Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Furthermore, the Court clarified that there was no evidence or claim that an outsider boarded the train to commit the theft. It said the possibility of theft by a fellow passenger couldn’t be ruled out.
“There was nothing on record to suggest that the theft could not have been carried out by some co-passenger on board. If that was so, even the presence of the Conductor in the train would have been of no help,”
— Delhi High Court
After analyzing all aspects, the Delhi High Court upheld the NCDRC’s decision and dismissed the passenger’s petition. The Court reiterated that unless there is direct and provable negligence or misconduct by railway officials, the Railways cannot be held accountable for theft of a passenger’s belongings during travel.
Title: SHAILENDRA JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA
