Railways told to pay Rs 4.7 lakh to passenger for bag theft

NEW DELHI: Citing that the passenger had taken "reasonable precautions" to safeguard his luggage but the TTE failed in his responsibility to prevent entry of "outsiders" in the reserved coach, NCDRC has ordered Railways to pay nearly Rs 4.7 lakh compensation to the traveller whose belongings were stolen. The incident happened on Amarkantak Express in May 2017.

Passing the order Monday, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed Railways' argument that under Section 100 of Railway Act its administration is not responsible for loss, destruction or deterioration unless a railway man has booked the luggage and given a receipt. Imposing a cost of Rs 20,000 on Railways for causing mental agony to the passenger, an NCDRC bench comprising Justice Sudip Ahluwalia and Rohit Kumar Singh, said, "...it is concluded that Railways is liable for the theft, and there was deficiency in service provided to the petitioner (passenger) owing to negligence of railway officials concerned." The Railways owe a duty of care towards passengers travelling in a reserved coach with their personal belongings and luggage, it said.

NCDRC passed the order while hearing a revision petition filed by Durg-based Dilip Kumar Chaturvedi against the order of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission.

The case dates back to May 9, 2017, when Chaturvedi with his family was travelling from Katni to Durg in a sleeper coach. He had lodged an FIR with railway police about his luggage - cash and articles of around Rs 9.3 lakh in value - being stolen around 2.30am. He then filed a case in the Durg district consumer commission, which directed South East Central Railway GM, Durg station master, and Bilaspur GRP thana in-charge to pay the claimed amount. But, the respondents challenged the order in the state commission, which quashed the district commission's order.

Chaturvedi filed a revision petition before NCDRC, submitting that the TTE and railway police staff were grossly negligent in allowing "unauthorised persons" in the reserved coach. His counsel submitted that the stolen luggage was duly chained and the defence of section 100 cannot be extended in case of negligence.