State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Regional Railway Manager vs Radhakrishnan C on 21 July, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KERALA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/16/750
REGIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
PRESENT ADDRESS - REGIONAL RAILWAY OFFICE RAILWAY COMPLEX MIDC MIRJOL
RETNAGIRI 415639 ,KERALA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
RADHAKRISHNAN C
PRESENT ADDRESS - SREESYLAM NEAR DEVASWAM OOTTUPURA THRIKANDIYOOR PO
TIRUR ,KERALA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT
FOR THE APPELLANT:
REGIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, S RENGANATHAN (Advocate)
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
RADHAKRISHNAN C
DATED: 21/07/2025
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.750/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21.07.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.34/2015 on the files of DCDRC, Malappuram) PRESENT:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER APPELLANT:
Regional Railway Manager, Regional Railway Office, Railway Complex, M.I.D.C. Mirjol, Ratnagiri - 415 639 (by Adv. S. Renganathan) Vs. RESPONDENT:
Radhakrishnan C., "Sreesylam", Near Devaswam Oottupura, Thrikandiyoor P.O., Tirur (by Adv. G.S. Kalkura) JUDGMENT HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.34/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short, 'the District Commission').
2. On 21.07.2014, while the complainant and his family were travelling from Tirur to Pune by Ernakulam - Pune Express in a 3 Tier AC coach, their valuable articles like gold ornaments, mobile phones, train ticket and Rs.30,000/- were found stolen during the night between 2a.m. and 3a.m. There was no sufficient security in the AC compartment and hence anybody could enter into the AC compartment even without a ticket. The matter was reported to the TTR, who stated that the train could be stopped only at Panvel station. However, the train was stopped at two other stations before reaching Panvel. The complainant got down from the train at Panvel station and lodged information to the Police with regard to the incident. The matter was informed to the Railway Administration also. However, they did not recover the stolen articles. No effective investigation was also conducted by the Railway authorities. In the said circumstances, the above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service against the Railway administration.
3. The opposite party filed a version contending that in view of Section 100 of the Railways Act 1989, the Railway administration shall not be responsible for any loss or damage to 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 party was not responsible for the loss of luggage, if any, from the custody of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
4. Before the District Commission, the complainant filed proof affidavit. Exhibits A1 to A4 were also marked for the complainant. No evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite party. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.3,55,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Five Thousand only) together with costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. It is not disputed that the complainant along with his family travelled in the 3 tier AC coach in Ernakulam - Pune Express on 21.07.2014. They boarded the train from Tirur station. The complainant would contend that during the night between 2a.m. and 3a.m., their gold ornaments, mobile phones, train ticket and Rs.30,000/- were found stolen along with the bag of the complainant.
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 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 opposite party. In the said circumstances, the finding by the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party cannot be sustained.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, order dated 30.07.2016 in C.C.No.34/2015 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 amount deposited by the appellant in connection with this appeal 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