Railways Not Responsible For Loss Due To Theft Unless It Is Due To Negligence Of Officials: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that Railways cannot be held liable for loss of luggage due to theft unless it was due to negligence or misconduct of the officials.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking setting aside of the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for restoring the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, enhancing the compensation granted to the Petitioner to the tune of ₹1,00,000/-.

The single bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, "....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."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Adtiya Jain while the Respondent was represented by Special Public Counsel Rajesh Kumar.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner boarded a train from New Delhi Railway Station to travel to Nagpur, in 3rd AC Coach. When the train left Bhopal Station, the Petitioner discovered that his backpack, containing a laptop, camera, charger, eyeglasses and ATM Cards issued by SBI and PNB worth ₹84,450/- were stolen. Petitioner informed the incident to the Coach Attendant, but he was rude and used rough language and asked him to instead approach the Conductor. However, the Conductor was untraceable and even the RPF or GRP personnel were not available. The Petitioner then lodged an FIR under Section 379 IPC and also filed a complaint before the Delhi Consumer Forum claiming ₹84,450/- for the loss of goods, ₹1 lakh on account of harassment and ₹20,000/- towards cost of litigation.

The District Forum held the Respondent to be deficient in service and awarded ₹5000/- as compensation to the Petitioner for harassment. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed First Appeal before SCDRC for enhancement of compensation, which was allowed and the order was accordingly modified. Feeling dissatisfied by the order of the SCDRC, the Respondent preferred a Revision Petition before NCDRC, which set aside the finding of the District Forum and the SCDRC and dismissed the complaint of the Petitioner.

The Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is no allegation that any unauthorized passenger was travelling in the train or that the Attendant or the TTE permitted any unauthorized passenger in the reserved coach. It was further submitted that there was no allegation that the door/vestibule door of the coach was not locked, which was the duty of the TTE. It was further submitted that under the Provisions of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, the Railway is not responsible for theft/loss of un-booked luggage. It was submitted that Rule 146 of the Coaching Tariff No. 24 (Part-1), (Vol. 1), states that the Railway cannot be held responsible for the loss of any un-booked luggage.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the claim for deficiency of service is mainly based on the fact that the Attendant was sleeping and was rude and the Conductor was not traceable.

"There is not even a whisper in the complaint that the doors of the coach were lying open due to the negligence of the Coach Attendant or Conductor or that due to the same, some unauthorized intruder entered into the coach and committed theft. 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. 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. There is no allegation or evidence in the present case or even an assertion in the complaint that any unauthorized person had entered the train. There is 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," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Shailendra Jain vs. Union Of India (2025:DHC:2406)

Click here to read/ download Order