The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a passenger, blaming the Railways for the theft of his backpack containing laptop, camera, charger, eye glasses and ATM cards, while he was travelling to Nagpur by a train in 2013.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja ruled that a passenger carrying luggage in a train compartment was himself responsible for its safe-keeping, and the Railways could not be held liable for any loss due to theft unless the incident occurred due to negligence or misconduct of the Railway officials.
The petitioner claimed that he informed the Coach Attendant about the theft, however, the official behaved rudely and asked him to instead approach the conductor. The conductor was untraceable and the RPF or GRP personnel were not available, he added.
The petitioner apprised the High Court that he filed a complaint before the Delhi Consumer Forum claiming Rs 84,450 for the loss of goods, Rs 1 lakh on account of harassment and Rs 20,000 towards the cost of litigation. The district forum held the Yailways to be deficient in service and awarded him Rs 5000 as compensation for harassment.
The petitioner then appealed the order before the State forum for enhanced compensation and the Railways was directed to pay Rs one lakh to him for the loss of articles due to negligence, harassment & mental agony suffered by him, and the cost of litigation.
The petitioner filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which dismissed his complaint, as well as the orders of the State and District forums.
He then moved the High Court.
The petitioner apprised the single-judge Bench that there was negligence and failure of duty on part of the Railway officials as the coach attendant refused to provide assistance, the conductor was untraceable, and there were no RPF or GRP personnel available to handle the situation.
He further submitted that such misconduct and negligence by the Railway officials directly caused the loss of his backpack.
The Counsel appearing for the Railways argued that since the passenger was carrying valuables, he should have been more vigilant and locked the bags with iron rings. Since the petitioner failed to take care of his belongings, the Railways could not be fastened with any liability on mere allegation of theft.
The High Court noted that the petitioner’s claim in his consumer complaint was mainly based on the fact that the attendant was sleeping and rude, while the conductor was not traceable.
It further took into consideration the fact that there was 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 unauthorised intruder entered into the coach and committed theft.
The High 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. 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 was no allegation or evidence in the present case or even an assertion in the complaint that any unauthorised person had entered the train. There was nothing on record to suggest that the theft could not have been carried out by some co-passenger on board. If such was the case, even the presence of the conductor in the train would have been of no help, it added.