State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
General Manager Northern Railway vs Ved Prakash Sharma on 3 December, 2025
FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025
GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 21.10.2016
Date of Hearing: 14.11.2025
Date of Decision: 03.12.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO.492/2016
IN THE MATTER OF
GENERAL MANAGER,
NORTHERN RAILWAY,
HEAD QUARTER, BARODA HOUSE,
NEW DELHI
...APPELLANT
(Through Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate
Email: [email protected]
& Mob.9990162021)
VERSUS
MR. VED PRAKASH SHARMA,
S/O MR. KAILASH SHARMA,
R/O F-120, STREET NO.82,
MAHAVIR ENCLAVE PART-III,
NEW DELHI-110059
...RESPONDENT
(Through AKJ Law Associates,
Email: [email protected]
& Mob.9911331276, 9999020047)
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, counsel for the appellant
None for the respondent
PER : HON'BLE PINKI, PRESIDING MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
DISMISSED Page 1 of 24
FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025
GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA
JUDGMENT
1. The present Appeal (First Appeal) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent as detailed above, against the order dated 06.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, (District South-I) (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Complaint (CC) No. 502/2008, inter-alia praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.
2. While the Appellant was Opposite Party before the District Commission and the Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission.
3. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he had booked tickets on 23.07.08 for train No.2557 SaptKranti Express berth Nos.17 and 20 in coach No.S-11. At around 22.30 p.m. when they reached at Lucknow station two GRPF staff who were not in uniform came in the coach and started checking the luggage of the passengers and misbehaving with the passengers and when the Complainant protested against it they started abusing him and beat him. At that time, TT was also present but he did not stop them. When the GRPF staff left he found that his wife's purse containing some cash, jewellery, mobile phone, ATM card and credit card of value of Rs.18,000/- was missing. He searched all around but could not find anything. No railway official including TT Arvind Kumar paid any heed to his complaint. After reaching to New Delhi Railway Station, he lodged complaint with GRPF, New Delhi. He also registered FIR bearing No.084 dated 24.07.08 U/s 379 IPC with P.S. New Delhi Railway Station. He and his wife suffered so much mental harassment and financial loss due to the negligence on the part of the staff of OP. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complaint has been filed with the following relief:-
i. Direct the OP to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards financial, mental and physical harassment suffered by the Complainant DISMISSED Page 2 of 24 FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA due to the illegal acts on the part of the officials of the OP.
ii. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant."
4. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 06.08.2016, whereby it held as under:
"It is not in dispute that Complainant alongwith his wife had booked tickets on 23.07.08 for train No.2557 Sapt Kranti Express berth No.17 and 20 in coach No.S-11 from Bettiah to New Delhi. When the train reached at the Lucknow Station two GRPF personnel came inside the compartment and checked the baggages of the passengers including the Complainant in the presence of TT Arvind Kumar and they went away and he found that his wife's purse containing some cash, jewellery, mobile phone, ATM card and credit card of Rs. 18,000/- was missing. He had informed the T.T. who was present in the compartment. He pulled the chain twice but the matter was not resolved. On reaching New Delhi Railway Station he lodged a complaint with GRPF New Delhi (we mark the document as annexure-A for the purpose of identification).
In view of the above, it transpires that the articles were lying in Complainant's wife's purse and there was no need to get it booked with the Railway department as the purse is always carried by the lady passenger herself. The OP has placed reliance on section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989 which reads as under:-
"100. Responsibility as carrier of luggage.-A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefore and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants."
We are unable to locate substance in these arguments. The Complainant has specifically stated that he immediately DISMISSED Page 3 of 24 FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA made a complaint to the T.T. but no action was taken. No affidavit of the concerned T.T. has been filed by the OP. Under the circumstances, a doubt creeps in whether people like T.T. works in cahoots with those culprits working as GRPF personnel. It is also difficult to fathom the role played by TT Arvind Kumar. Complainant had to wait upto Delhi Nobody came to his rescue. It is clear that in the present case the Railway Dept. was terribly remiss in discharge of its duty. The complaint made to the T.T. was just like talking to a brickwall. It is the duty of the State to take care of the passengers without any lame excuse. State includes state police, GRPF and Railways. They have to work in coordination with one another. It was a New Delhi bound train. Railways have their Head Quarters in Delhi. Therefore, this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint without asking the Complainant to implead East Central Railway, Hazipur as OP (Sue Indian Railways V/s Anchal Garg, R.P. No.4723/13 decided by the Hon'ble. National Commission on 06.01.2014). It is clearly proved that the incident had taken place due to the misconduct on the part of TT Arvind Kumar and two unknown GRPF personnel. Therefore, claim is maintainable. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in lumpsum to the Complainant towards financial loss, mental pain, physical agony suffered by the Complainant and his wife including cost of litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 6% per annum on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization."
5. Vide Order dated 06.08.2016, in the CC No.502/2008, the District Commission allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party has filed the present appeal contending that the District Commission has failed to consider that the proceedings were invalid as it reopened the complaint on 06.06.2014 after more than two and half years without confirming whether the notice issued to the Opposite Party had ever been served before passing the final order. It is further submitted that the impugned order is DISMISSED Page 4 of 24 FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA unsustainable as the complainant failed to implead East Central Railway, Hajipur, despite a clear direction from the District Commission on 13.08.2013 to add it as a necessary party. The Forum also ignored the Appellant's written statement (Para 4) explaining that East Central Railway was essential since TTE Arvind Kumar worked under its jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the Respondent/Complainant did not book the articles as mandated by the Railway Rules and in view of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, no liability can be affixed on the appellant for un-booked luggage. By pressing the aforesaid contentions and submissions, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the Impugned Judgment.
6. The Respondent, on the other hand, filed reply to the present Appeal wherein, he has denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order
7. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of the parties.
8. Record of the learned District Commission has also been received.
9. We have carefully and thoroughly perused the material available on record as well as the written submissions filed by the parties.
10. The only question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission erred in allowing the complaint filed by the respondent before it.
11. The appellant alleges that the District Commission violated the principles of natural justice by failing to confirm whether the notice was served upon the appellant/opposite party before passing the final order, especially when the matter had been kept sine-die.
12. A perusal of record shows that the respondent's complaint was kept sine-die on 13.01.2014 with a direction to reopen the same if DISMISSED Page 5 of 24 FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA the complainant/respondent appeared before the District Commission in the future.
13. For reference, the orders dated 06.06.2014, 04.08.2014, 02.01.2015, 02.07.2015, 16.11.2015, 03.03.2016 & 28.07.2016 are incorporated as under:
DISMISSED Page 6 of 24FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA DISMISSED Page 7 of 24 FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA
14. Upon perusal of the above record, it is evident that on 06.06.2014, the District Commission reopened the case of the respondent pursuant to his application and thereafter issued notice to the appellant/ opposite party to appear and join the proceedings on 04.08.2014. It is pertinent to note that the pleadings in the case had been completed before the matter was adjourned sine-die. The District Commission issued notice to the appellant only after the matter had been duly reopened, and the impugned order came to be passed more than two years after the revival of the case. During the entire period, the District Commission issued notice to the appellant for appearance to join the proceedings. However, despite the matter having remained pending for almost two years, the appellant failed to appear before the District Commission to join the proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the appellant DISMISSED Page 8 of 24 FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA that the District Commission ought to have verified service of notice does not appear to be bonafide, particularly when the District Commission had waited until the stage of reserving the order and had afforded adequate opportunity to advance the arguments. The appellant chose not to appear before the District Commission at any stage and made no effort to ascertain the status of the case during the said entire period.
15. Further, it is alleged that the impugned order is unsustainable as the complainant has failed to implead East Central Railway, Hajipur, despite the clear direction of the District Commission dated 13.08.2013 to add it as a necessary party.
16. To decide this issue, order dated 13.08.2013 of the District Commission is reproduced as under:
DISMISSED Page 9 of 24FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA
17. From the perusal of above order, it is evident that the submissions of the Chief Office Superintendent, Northern Railway who had appeared before the District Commission were recorded to the effect that the train in question does not fall under their jurisdiction and instead falls under the jurisdiction of East Central Railway, Hajipur as the train starts from Bettiah (Sampark Kranti Express). The complainant was, therefore, required to implead Central Railway as a party. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the respondent failed to implead the Central Railway as a necessary party despite direction of the District Commission, is not sustainable.
18. Another issue that falls for our consideration is whether the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of the District Commission and whether the complainant was not to be heard for want of territorial jurisdiction.
19. It is not in dispute that on 23.07.2008, the respondent alongwith his wife had booked tickets for train No.2557 Sapt Kranti Express berth No.17 and 20 in coach No.S-11 from Bettiah to New Delhi. When a theft occurs on a running train-such as at Lucknow station during a journey to Delhi, the cause of action is deemed the continuous between the originating and destination stations. The cause of action is not confined to the place where the theft occurred rather it extends throughout the entire journey, including the jurisdiction in which the controlling Railway Administration is situated.
20. The District Commission has rightly relied on Indian Railways V/s Anchal Garg, R.P. No.4723/13 decided by the Hon'ble NCDRC on 06.01.2014.
21. It is settled principle that when an incident such as theft occurs on a train during an interstate journey, the cause of action continues from the point of embarkation to the point of DISMISSED Page 10 of 24 FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA destination. Consequently, the location of the Railway Administration's Headquarters for example, in Delhi also constitutes a part of the territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the case of action cannot be restricted solely to the place where the theft occurred but extends across the entire route, including the headquarters of the concerned railway zone.
22. In a number of cases, Consumer Commissions have held that complaints relating to theft or loss occurring on a running train are maintainable before the Commission (Forum) within whose jurisdiction the Railway Administration's headquarters is located, even if the incident occurred en route. The rationale is that the Railway Administration bears responsibility under the Railways Act as well as the Consumer Protection Act to ensure the safety of passengers and their belongings during transit.
23. These principles establish that, in cases of theft occurring on trains bound for Delhi, the complaint is maintainable within the territorial jurisdiction where the Railway Administration's headquarters is situated. This approach balances the territorial aspect of the place where the loss occurred with the administrative control exercised by the Railway Authority. Therefore, the District Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint even without impleading the Central Railway as a party.
24. The last question that requires determination in the present case is whether the appellant can deny their liability to compensate the Respondent/Complainant by placing reliance on Section 100 of the Railways Act, and whether there was negligence on the part of the Railway Administration in providing adequate safety measures, such that no liability could be affixed upon the appellant in respect of un-booked luggage.
DISMISSED Page 11 of 24FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA
25. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989, the Railway is not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of un- booked luggage as the luggage was not booked with the Railways. It is further submitted that the Railway cannot be held for the loss of any un-booked luggage, Rule 500 of the Indian Railway Coaching Tariff Clause provides that all the articles are taken into the carriage are carried at the entire risk of the owners, according to Rule 506.2 of Indian Railway Coaching Tariff, passenger himself is responsible for the safety of his luggage and the Railways cannot be held liable for any loss of damage. He has further submitted that the District Forum was wrong in holding that the TTE (Travelling Ticket Examiner) of the train has failed to perform his duties, which amounted to negligence and also deficiency in service, as per codified duties of the TTE. He has further submitted that since the complaint is related to the offence of theft and the complainant was required to strictly prove that he was carrying the alleged articles with him and the theft occurred due to the negligence of the Railways. He has further submitted that the theft took place due to the negligence of the complainant himself.
26. Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, reads as under:-
"Responsibility as carrier of luggage.--A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefore and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servant."DISMISSED Page 12 of 24
FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA
27. The scope of Section100 of the Railways Act and other related instructions of the Railways with respect to liabilities of Railways in cases of theft/loss of luggage had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble NCDRC in case titled 'Indian Railways through its General Manager &Anr. Vs. Smt. Uma Agarwal', R.P. No. 1099 of 2020, decided on 25.07.2023, considered various legal issues with respect to liability of Railways in such circumstances. Extract of relevant paras of order is reproduced below:
"9. We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contentions of the parties, orders of the State Commission and District Forum and other relevant records. There is no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that incident is not covered under the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act and that issue is covered under Indian Penal Code and Railway Claim Tribunal Act, as remedies under Consumer Protection Act are in addition to remedies under other Statutes. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imperia Structures Ltd Vs Anil Patni and Anr (2020)10 SCC 783 that "Remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the remedies under special statutes".
Petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Station Superintendent & Anr. Vs. Surender Bhola (Civil Appeal No. 7116 of 2017) decided on 15.06.2023 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in a way a deficiency in service by the railways. If the passenger is notable to protect his own belongings, the railways cannot be held responsible". Petitioner argued that this judgment clearly states that the onus of security of belongings of the passenger in railway coaches is on the passenger themselves and not on the railways.
............
11. Respondent has relied on office letter No. 98/TG-V/12/3 dated 11.09.1998 of the Petitioner / Railways, which prescribe certain duties of train conductor in Ist AC,2nd AC, 3rd AC and Ist class coaches, some of which are listed below:
5. He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach and guide the passengers in occupying their accommodation.
He prevents illegal / unauthorized entry in the coach including the platform ticket holders.
11. He shall ensure that the doors of the coaches are kept latched during run of the train and open them as and when required by the passengers.
DISMISSED Page 13 of 24FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA
12. He shall keep the end doors of the vestibule coach locked during 22.00 hrs. to06.00 hrs to prevent unauthorized entry.
13. He shall remain vigilant particularly during the night time and prevent entry of unauthorized persons / beggars / intruders in the coach.
17. He shall be present in the allotted coach during duty hours and if more than one coach are to be manned, give frequent visits to all the coaches to be manned.
19. He shall attend to any complaint of theft / loss of passenger belongings and lodged the first information report with the GRP in the prescribed format to enable the passenger to continue the journey.
20. He shall carry blank FIR forms for making them available to the passengers in case of any incident of theft of luggage etc. Such forms duly filled in the handed over to the next GRP Post at the scheduled stoppage for further action in the matter.
12. Relying on above, the respondent contended that the railway personnel who were supposed to be in the coach have violated several of their duties which have been prescribed by the Railway Board by not closing the gates at night, not being present in the coach, allowing intruders in the coach, not aiding the respondent in filing the FIR among others. Hence, as they have failed in their duty, they were negligent in providing the requisite service to their consumers and the respondent herein. Thus, the Railways is liable for deficiency of service on account of negligence of its employees.
13. In Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwalla ( supra ), this Commission held that " TTE of coach was negligent in performance of his duties by not keeping the doors of the coach latched when the train was on the move and by not keeping the vestibules doors of coach locked from 10 p.m. to 6 p.m." Relying on this case, respondent contends that present case also warrants of the same circumstances where the doors of the coach were left open. Hence, it was a negligent act on the part of the TTE and the revisionists are liable to pay the compensation. In General Manager, South Central Railways Vs. Jagannath Mohan Shinde(supra), this Commission held that "If any unauthorized person is permitted to be present on the reserved compartment of a train, then Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act would not be of any help to the Railways in absolving them from any liability since anyways the Railways is responsible as a carrier of luggage if it is proved that there was negligence on its part." Relying on this judgment, the respondent argued that the contention of the revisionists that the DISMISSED Page 14 of 24 FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA ld. Consumer Commissions do not have jurisdiction in matters covered Section 100 of the Act, stands invalidated. In G.M. South Central Railway Vs. R.V. Kumar 2005 SCC Online NCDRC 222, this Commission observed that "A passenger travelling by a train is entitled to carry certain baggage or luggage within permissible limits of weights, free of cost. There is no question of entrusting such baggage / luggage to the Railways and getting a receipt thereof. If a loss take place of such a luggage, Railways can be held responsible provided that there is negligence on the part of the Railways or any of its servants, provided, of course, that the passenger himself has taken responsible care of his personal baggage as expected of a prudent person." The respondent argued that in the present case, the respondent has taken more than reasonable care by keeping the purse beneath her pillow while sleeping. Moreover she tried her best to stop the snatching of her belongings and despite being a female bravely tried to catch hold of the intruder herself but was stopped by person who was supposedly railway staff as appeared from his uniform/appearance. Railway officials by keeping the doors of the coach open and by allowing an unauthorized person to enter the coach have failed to perform their duty which point towards their negligence thus causing a deficiency in service. In Station Master, Indian Raiwlays V s. Sunil Kumar ( supra ), this Commission observed that "We further note that the complainant was travelling with ladies (mother and wife ) and children on reserved berths in a reserved coach after paying the fares and purchasing the tickets. He was right in agitating that the railways was responsible for safety and security of person and hand-held baggage, including from unknown persons who gained entry unauthorizedly and committed theft (the railways was undoubtedly responsible for theft of hand-held baggage from running train). Respondent argued that in the present case, theft occurred under similar circumstances as the respondent's belongings were stolen by unauthorized persons in a reserved coach, therefore, the Railways are liable to pay compensation to the respondents.
14. Petitioner argued that jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is barred because matters pertaining to the theft is specifically barred by Section 97 and 100 of the Railways Act, extract of which is reproduced below:
"Section 97 : Goods carried at owner's risk rate - Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 93, a railway administration shall not be responsible for any loss, destruction, damages, deterioration or non delivery in transit, of any consignment carried at owner's risk rate, from whatever cause arising except upon proof, that such loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery was due to negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of it servants."DISMISSED Page 15 of 24
FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA Section 100. Responsibility as carrier of luggage.--A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefore and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servant."
A bare perusal of above provisions show that under section 100, if it is proved that loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to negligence or misconduct on the part of railways or on the part of any of its servant, the railways administration will be held responsible. In this case both the fora below have given concurrent findings regarding negligence / deficiency of service on the part of petitioner railways/ its officials. Hence, agreeing with the contentions of the respondent, we do not find any infirmity or illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order ofthe State Commission, hence the same is upheld."
28. Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble NCDRC in case titled 'Ashok Kumar Purohit Vs. Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Central Railway & Anr., RP No. 1353 of 2019, decided on 16.10.2023. Relevant paras of this order are reproduced below:
"9. In Dinesh Agrawal Vs. Indian Railway and Others, RP No. 3265 of 2014 decided on 03.09.2015, this Commission observed:
5. Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 on which reliance is placed by the petitioner reads as under:
"Responsibility as carrier of luggage - A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration of non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefore and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants."
It would thus be seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or any of its employees.
DISMISSED Page 16 of 24FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though no unauthorized person was entitled to enter the compartment in which the complainant and his wife were travelling, the railway officials permitted the such persons to enter the coach and it was on account of the such unauthorized entry that the theft could be possible. We however find that there is no evidence of any unauthorized person having actually entered the coach in which the complainant and his wife were travelling. This is complainant's own case that they were sleeping at the time of theft took place. Therefore, they possibly cannot have personal knowledge about the alleged presence of some unauthorized persons in the coach. Hence, we are satisfied that the alleged presence of unauthorized persons in the reserved compartment could not be established. The possibility of a fellow passenger, travelling on a reserved ticket having committed the theft and got down at a station, when the complainant was asleep cannot be ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that TTE did not render requisite cooperation to the complainant after the theft was reported to him. The plea taken in the reply filed by the OPs is that the TTE had rendered all possible help to the complainant as soon as he was informed the alleged theft. There is no independent evidence of non-cooperation on the part of the TTE. In any case, the alleged theft cannot be attributed to the said non-cooperation on the part of the TTE since it had already been taken before the matter was reported to him.
10. In Union of India & Anr Vs. Lakshit Joshi, RP No. 432 of 2016 decided on 02.11.2017, this Commission observed :
9. ............. Thus, it is clear that the luggage was lost when the train was at halt at the station when passengers get down the train and some others board the train. In such situation, if the luggage was lying unattended, anybody could have walked off with the bag. This is the time when the TTE and the conductor are also busy in some other necessary activities. Some time even the staff is changed at such big stations. Otherwise, also there are instructions that passengers should not use the washroom when the train is halting at a railway station. In many judgments passed by this Commission, this Commission has taken a view that Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 is applicable in such cases and until some negligence or misconduct of any employee is proved, the Indian Railways is not liable. This Commission in the case of Union of India and others vs. Rama Shanker Misra and another (supra) has held that :
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) - Railways -baggage stolen by cutting chain of lock - Loss of valuables - Deficiency in service allege - Compensation claimed
- District Forum allowed complaint - State Commission partly DISMISSED Page 17 of 24 FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA allowed appeal - Hence revision - No averment in complaint which could constitute any negligence or misconduct or even deficiency in service on part of railways or any of its employees- Petitioner could have been liable to compensate only if some negligence or misconduct on part of railway employee was established- As no such negligence having even been alleged it would be difficult to sustain impugned order."
x xxx
11. The case cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant which is Union of India through its General Manager vs. Dr (Smt.) Shobha Agarwal (supra) has different facts. In fact, the complainant in the referred case had taken all the precautions and had tied up their suitcase with the chains fastened with the berth and the theft has occurred after cutting the chain during night. Whereas in the present case, theft had occurred in the morning when the train was halting at a big station and the bag was left unattended for some time by the complainant. Thus, the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant is not directly applicable in the present case.
11.In Station Superintendent and Anr. Vs. SurenderBhola, 2023 SCC Online SC 741, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :
"5. We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way a deficiency in service by the Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held responsible."
12. From the perusal of various judgments of this Commission relied upon by the respondent / Railways, it is evident that under Section 100 of the Railways Act 1989, Railways are not responsible. It would thus be seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or any of its employees and railways could have been liable to compensate only if some negligence or misconduct on the part of railway employee was established.
13. In Northern Railway Vs. Neetu Gupta &Anr, RP No. 3164 of 2017 decided on 14.05.2018, this Commission observed as follows:
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon Section 100 of the Railways Act. The aforesaid provision was also considered by this Commission in Syed Mubuddin Rizvi (supra) and the following view was taken:
" 6.As regards Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 on which reliance is placed by the petitioner reads as under:DISMISSED Page 18 of 24
FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA "Responsibility as carrier of luggage - A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration of non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefore and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants".
It would thus be seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways on any of its employees."
14. Same was the view taken by this Commission in R.P. No.3799 of 2014 Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwalla & Anr. decided on 26.05.2015, wherein this Commission observed :
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner now relies upon Section 103. The aforesaid provision, in my view, has no applicability to a case where compensation is claimed on account of negligence on the part of the railway officials.
8. Coming to the alleged negligence on the part of the petitioners, it is not in dispute that the complainants were travelling in a reserved compartment. In the complaint filed before the concerned District Forum, the petitioners did not dispute the aforesaid position. They also did not dispute the allegation of the complainants that a beggar woman had entered the reserved compartment at Mughal Sarai railway station and had committed theft of the purse being carried by complainant no.1. Since the complainants were travelling in a reserved compartment, it was the duty of the railway officials to ensure that no unauthorized person entered the said compartment at Mughal Sarai railway station. By not preventing the entry of a beggar woman in a reserved compartment, the railway officials committed an act of gross negligence and since the aforesaid negligence resulted into a theft, they are also liable to reimburse the complainants for the loss suffered by them.
15. In South East Central Railway and Anr. Vs. Soni Singh and Connected matter, RP No. 2081 of 2018 and connected matter, decided on 15.03.2019, this Commission held :
7. .....It is the duty of the Railway Authorities to ensure that no unauthorized person travels in the Reserved Coach. If an unauthorized person travels in the Reserved Coach, the Railway authorities fail in discharging their obligation and will result in deficiency in service making them liable to reimburse the passenger for the value of goods/items, which have been DISMISSED Page 19 of 24 FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA stolen or snatched, which has actually happened in the present cases.
16. In Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwalla 2015 SCC Online NCDRC 2956, this Commission held that " TTE of coach was negligent in performance of his duties by not keeping the doors of the coach latched when the train was on the move and by not keeping the vestibules doors of coach locked from 10 p.m. to 6 p.m.".............. Hence, it was a negligent act on the part of the TTE and the revisionists are liable to pay the compensation. In General Manager, South Central Railways Vs. Jagannath Mohan Shinde 2012 SCC Online NCDRC 183, this Commission held that "If any unauthorized person is permitted to be present on the reserved compartment of a train, then Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act would not be of any help to the Railways in absolving them from any liability since anyways the Railways is responsible as a carrier of luggage if it is proved that there was negligence on its part." In G.M. South Central Railway Vs. R.V. Kumar 2005 SCC Online NCDRC 222, this Commission observed that "A passenger travelling by a train is entitled to carry certain baggage or luggage within permissible limits of weights, free of cost. There is no question of entrusting such baggage / luggage to the Railways and getting a receipt thereof. If a loss take place of such a luggage, Railways can be held responsible provided that there is negligence on the part of the Railways or any of its servants, provided, of course, that the passenger himself has taken responsible care of his personal baggage as expected of a prudent person." ......... Railway officials by keeping the doors of the coach open and by allowing an unauthorized person to enter the coach have failed to perform their duty which point towards their negligence thus causing a deficiency in service. In Station Master, Indian Railways V s. Sunil Kumar 2018 SCC Online NCDRC, this Commission observed that "We further note that the complainant was travelling with ladies ( mother and wife ) and children on reserved berths in a reserved coach after paying the fares and purchasing the tickets. He was right in agitating that the railways was responsible for safety and security of person and hand-held baggage, including from unknown persons who gained entry unauthorizedly and committed theft ( the railways was undoubtedly responsible for theft of hand-held baggage from running train). Respondent argued that in the present case, theft occurred under similar circumstances as the respondent's belongings were stolen by unauthorized persons in a reserved coach, therefore, the Railways are liable to pay compensation to the respondents.
17. In Indian Railway and Ors. Vs. Uma Agarwal, RP No. 1099 of 2020 decided on 25.07.2023, this Commission took note of instructions of Railways contained in their office letter. No. 98/TG-
DISMISSED Page 20 of 24FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA V/12/3 dated 11.09.1998, which prescribe certain duties of train conductor in Ist AC, 2nd AC, 3rd AC and Ist class coaches, some of which are reproduced below:
5. He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach and guide the passengers in occupying their accommodation. He prevents illegal / unauthorized entry in the coach including the platform ticket holders.
11. He shall ensure that the doors of the coaches are kept latched during run of the train and open them as and when required by the passengers.
12. He shall keep the end doors of the vestibule coach locked during 22.00 hrs. to 06.00 hrs to prevent unauthorized entry.
13. He shall remain vigilant particularly during the night time and prevent entry of unauthorized persons / beggars / intruders in the coach.
17. He shall be present in the allotted coach during duty hours and if more than one coach are to be manned, give frequent visits to all the coaches to be manned.
19. He shall attend to any complaint of theft / loss of passenger belongings and lodged the first information report with the GRP in the prescribed format to enable the passenger to continue the journey.
20. He shall carry blank FIR forms for making them available to the passengers in case of any incident of theft of luggage etc. Such forms duly filled in the handed over to the next GRP Post at the scheduled stoppage for further action in the matter."
29. Hon'ble National Commission in RP 196/2016 titled as "Union of India and others v. Syed Mubuddin Rizvi decided on 21.07.2016, after dealing with Sections 13, 15 & 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, has observed as under:-
"It would thus be seen that the jurisdiction of a Court or an authority other than the Railway Claims Tribunal would be barred only in the matters in which the said tribunal would have jurisdiction in terms of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. A perusal of Section 13 as extracted herein above would show that the said tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant compensation to a passenger who has lost the luggage being carried by him with him on account of the negligence of a railway employee. The jurisdiction for the tribunal is restricted to the goods or animals entrusted to the railway administration for carriage and compensation payable under Section 82A & 124A of the Railways Act. Though the tribunals would also DISMISSED Page 21 of 24 FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA have power to award compensation on account of an untoward incident in terms of Section 124A of the Railways Act, the compensation on account of loss of the carriage being carried by a passenger with him does not come under the jurisdiction of the Railways Claims Tribunal. Consequently, the jurisdiction of Courts and other authorities would not be barred in respect of such a claim."
30. In the aforementioned dicta, Hon'ble National Commission also relied upon Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 and observed that it would thus be seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or any of its employees. In the facts of the aforementioned dicta it has been observed as under:-
"8. In my opinion, had the T.T.E. and/or coach conductor been present throughout and not sleeping, he would have certainly noticed the miscreants cutting the chain and leaving the compartment with the suitcase of the Respondent/Complainant . The very fact that the cutting of the chain and the theft of the suitcase was not noticed either by the T.T.E. or by the coach conductor clearly indicates that either they were not present in the coach as is alleged by the Respondent/Complainant or they were sleeping somewhere in the coach instead of taking rounds of the coach moving from one end to the other end. It would be pertinent to note here that this was the case of the petitioner that in fact no theft had taken place and a false report of theft was made by the Respondent/Complainant . This is also not the case of the petitioners in the reply filed before the District Forum that the Respondent/Complainant had not secured his suitcase using an iron chain and lock for the purpose as was alleged by him. Therefore, the case set out by the Respondent/Complainant remained practically unrebutted."
31. The aforesaid Revision Petition filed by the Railways was dismissed on the ground that since the theft of the suitcase happened due to negligence on the part of the railway employees, the petitioners are liable to compensate the Respondent/Complainant for the loss sustained by him.
DISMISSED Page 22 of 24FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA
32. Since the respondent alongwith his wife was travelling in the reserved coach of the Railways, it was the duty of the TTE to ensure that no intruder enter the reserved compartment of the Railways. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that price difference between an unreserved ticket and a reserved ticket is quite high and the passengers who buy a reserved ticket have a reasonable expectation that they can commute with a certain level of security and safety. There is a responsibility cast on the TTE/Coach Conductor/staff attached to the reserved compartments to be very vigilant about anyone other than the reserved tickets holders entering the compartment, to such an extent that he is required to prevent even a relative of the passenger holding a platform ticket who comes to see off a passenger, from entering a coach. The TTE/Coach Conductor/staff is particularly required to take special care and to ensure that the doors of the coach are kept locked when the train is on the move. It is to be noted that a strong presumption is raised against the TTE/Coach Conductor/staff in charge of ensuring the security of the reserved compartment that they failed in the performance of their duties which led to the commission of theft.
33. The theft of purse of the complainant' wife took place from a reserved compartment and, therefore, it could not be ruled out that some intruder must have entered the reserved compartment who committed the theft of the purse. Had the TTE of the Railways been vigilant and careful the entry of the intruders/some unauthorized persons must have been prevented in the coach during the journey and the complainant did not have to face the mental agony and harassment due to the theft of his wife's purse.
34. It is rightly observed that the incident occurred due to misconduct of TTE Mr. Arvind Kumar and two unknown GRPF personnel, whose affidavit or identities have not come on record.
DISMISSED Page 23 of 24FA/492/2016 D.O.D. 03.12.2025 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. VED PRAKASH SHARMA
35. In view of the above, the District Commission was right in observing that the TTE of the train has failed to perform his duties, amounting to negligence and deficiency in service as per codified duties of the TTE.
36. The District Consumer has adjudicated the matter and awarded fair, equitable and reasonable compensation to the respondent.
37. Thus, we do not find any reasons to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 06.08.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, (District South-I) in Complaint (CC) No. 502/2008. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
38. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
39. FDR, if any be released in favour of the Respondent.
40. Record of the District Commission be sent to the concerned District Commission alongwith copy of this order.
41. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
42. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 03.12.2025 DISMISSED Page 24 of 24