State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd vs Mayuri Nair on 21 July, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KERALA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/404/2017
KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD
PRESENT ADDRESS - CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KONKAN RAILWAY
CORPORATION LTD, BELAPUR BHAVAN, SECTOR11, PLOT NO-6, CBD BELAPUR, NAVI
MUMBAI- 400614 ,KERALA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
MAYURI NAIR
PRESENT ADDRESS - EXECUTIVE E BUILDING, FLAT NO-103, GANAPATHY HOUSING
SOCIETY, COLONAL SHARMA COMPOUND, BEHIND NIGADI BUS STOP, NIGDI PUNE-
411044 ,KERALA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT
FOR THE APPELLANT:
KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD, PARANIYAM R T DEVA KUMAR
(Advocate)
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MAYURI NAIR
DATED: 21/07/2025
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 404/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21.07.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.213/2015 on the files of DCDRC, Kannur) PRESENT:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER APPELLANT:
Chairman and Managing Director, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., Belapur Bhavan, Sector 11, Plot No.6, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400 614 (by Adv. Paraniyam Devakumar) Vs. RESPONDENT:
Mayuri Nair, W/o Avinash Nair, Executive, E-Building, Flat No.103, Ganapathy Housing Society, Colonel Sharma Compound, Behind Nigadi Bus Stop, Nigdi, Pune - 411 044 (by Adv. K.T. Sidhiq and Adv. G.S. Kalkura) JUDGMENT HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 3rd opposite party in C.C.No.213/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (for short, 'the District Commission').
2. On 22.07.2014, while the complainant, her husband and mother-in-law were travelling in Train No.22149 in coach No.13 in berth Nos. 41, 42 and 44 towards Pune, her jewellery worth Rs.43,000/-(Rupees Forty Three Thousand only) had been stolen by somebody. Though a complaint was made to the T.T.E when the train reached Chiplun station, it was not reported to the Police at Chiplun station by the railway authorities. When the train reached Panvel station, a Railway Police Inspector took down the information regarding the theft. The Railway did not take any action in the incident. In the said circumstances, the above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The opposite parties filed separate versions denying the contentions in the complaint. The common contention is that the complaint is not maintainable in view of Section 100 of the Railways Act 1989. As per the said provision, the Railway is not responsible for any loss or damage to the luggage carried by the passengers in their custody along with them. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Railway administration. The Railway administration is responsible only for the carriage of goods entrusted with them on payment of charges. In the present case, the articles were in the custody of the passenger. In the said circumstances, the opposite parties were not responsible for the loss of luggage, if any, from the custody of the complainant.
4. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A12 were marked for the complainant. No evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite parties. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the 3rd opposite party to pay Rs.43,000/-(Rupees Forty Three Thousand only) towards the value of the lost gold ornaments along with Rs.2,000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand only) as costs.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. It is not disputed that the complainant along with her family travelled in train No.22149 from Thalassery to Pune on 22.07.2014. The complainant alleged that on 23.07.2014 early morning, her jewellery worth Rs.43,000/- had been stolen while travelling by the train. Exhibit A10 series would show that in connection with the incident, a crime was registered in Panvel Police Station. However, the outcome of the investigation is not yet available.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Station Superintendent and Another vs Surender Bhola reported in 2023 KHC 6654 : 2023 (3) CPJ 1A (SC) and the unreported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaykumar Jain vs Union of India and Another (Special leave to appeal No.34739/12) and argued that if there is theft of baggage carried by the passengers, the Railway Administration is not responsible.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay vs Union of India and Others reported in AIR 2004 SC 2368 : 2004 (6) SCC 113 and the decision of the National Commission in North Western Railway vs Ravi Lodha reported in III (2023) CPJ320 and argued that the Railway administration is responsible in the event of theft of baggage in the course of journey by train.
9. In Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay vs Union of India and Ors. (supra), while the complainant was travelling in a first class AC coach from Nagpur to Mumbai in Howrah Mail, the complainant was assaulted by some unauthorised passengers and her bag containing gold, pearl, silver, diamond and other valuables valued at Rs.1,11,756/- were looted. The incident occurred on 04.12.1991. Thousands of persons entered into the compartment and assaulted the passengers, including the complainant. The crowd also committed so many other illegal acts including rape. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph (6) that under S.124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Railway administration could not escape from the liability having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the incident that had taken place. The facts of the present case are different from the facts in Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay vs Union of India and Ors. (supra). In the said circumstances, the above said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. In North Western Railway vs Ravi Lodha (supra), the National Commission held that if the attache bag is stolen, the Railway administration is liable.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaykumar Jain vs Union of India and Another (supra) held that the Railways cannot be held responsible for the loss of attache bag by way of theft or otherwise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Station superintendent and Another vs Surendar Bhola (supra) held in paragraph 5 as hereinunder:-
"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. In view of the above settled position, the 3rd opposite party is not liable to the theft of baggage carried by the passenger. Consequently, there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party in this regard. In the said circumstances, the finding by the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party cannot be sustained.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, order dated 09.01.2017 in C.C.No.213/2015 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant, on proper acknowledgement.
PRESIDENT JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA :
KUMAR JUDICIAL AJITH KUMAR D. :
MEMBER SL/jb .................. SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR PRESIDENT