Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, held that a passenger who carried his own luggage in the compartment was personally responsible for its safekeeping, and the Railways were not held liable for any loss caused by theft unless the theft occurred due to the negligence or misconduct of railway officials. 

The court made these observations in a petition seeking to set aside the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The petitioner had also sought the restoration of an earlier order dated March 1, 2023, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), which had enhanced the compensation awarded to the petitioner to ₹1,00,000.

The case arose from an incident that occurred on January 16, 2013, when the petitioner boarded a train from New Delhi to Nagpur with a reserved berth in the 3rd AC coach. During the journey, after the train departed from Bhopal Station, the petitioner discovered that his backpack—containing a laptop, camera, charger, eyeglasses, and ATM cards issued by SBI and PNB, collectively valued at ₹84,450—had been stolen.

The petitioner reported the theft to the Coach Attendant, who allegedly responded rudely and redirected him to the Conductor. However, the Conductor was untraceable, and no Railway Protection Force (RPF) or Government Railway Police (GRP) personnel were available. The petitioner subsequently lodged an FIR on January 17, 2013, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code at GRP Nagpur Station.

The petitioner then approached the Delhi Consumer Forum, claiming ₹84,450 for the loss, ₹1,00,000 for harassment, and ₹20,000 toward litigation costs. On December 18, 2014, the District Forum held the railway authorities deficient in service but awarded only ₹5,000 as compensation for harassment.

Dissatisfied with the award, the petitioner filed a First Appeal before the SCDRC, which, on March 1, 2023, modified the District Forum’s order and enhanced the compensation. However, the Union of India challenged this decision before the NCDRC, which on August 29, 2024, set aside both the SCDRC and District Forum’s findings and dismissed the complaint.

Challenging this dismissal, the petitioner approached the court, arguing that the train had arrived unmanned at Nagpur Station and that the negligence of the Conductor and Coach Attendant contributed directly to the loss. 

Special Public Counsel Rajesh Kumar, representing the Union, contended that the backpack was unregistered and that the petitioner failed to take basic safety precautions such as securing the bag with the iron rings provided under the seats. It was further argued that there was no evidence of unauthorized entry or that the coach doors were left open due to staff negligence. Additionally, the backpack’s contents were neither proved nor declared before the journey.

The court observed that “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”. 

The court reiterated that the railway could not be held liable for a passenger's failure to safeguard personal belongings. Considering the legal position, the court found no error in the NCDRC’s decision. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition. 

For Petitioner: Advocates Adtiya Jain, Desam Sudhakar Reddy and Sarika S
For Respondent: Special Public Counsel Rajesh Kumar, Government Pleader Aakash Kukmar Singh with Advocates Rahul Kumar Sharma and Yash Narain
Case Title: Shailendra Jain v Union (2025:DHC:2406)