National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Manju Chaurasia vs The Union Of India & Others on 15 July, 2025
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
NC/REVISION PETITION NO. 2381 of 2024
(Against the order dated 06.06.2024 in FA No. 293 of 2023 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh)
Manju Chaurasia
W/o Sushil Chaurasia
R/o MIG - 1/831, Aamdinagar,
Hudco, Bhilai,
Tehsil & District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Revisionist
Versus
1. The Union of India,
East Coat Railway,
Through General Manager,
Division Sambalpur (Odisha)
2. Station Manager,
South East Central Railway, Durg,
Railway Station Durg (C.G.)
3. G.R.P. Police Station,
Titlagarh
Through Station Incharge,
District Titlagarh (Odisha) Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE DR INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER
For the Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate
(through video conferencing)
For the Respondents No. 1&2: Mr. Vishal Kumar Chandel, Advocate
(through video conferencing
Pronounced on : 15th July, 2025
ORDER
DR. SADHNA SHANKER. MEMBER
1. This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') in challenge to the order dated 06.06.2024 in Page 1 of 17 of RP No. 2381 of 2024 First Appeal No. 293 of 2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (in short, the 'State Commission') arising out of an order dated 13.10.2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, the 'District Forum') in consumer complaint no. 1251 of 2018.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 03.05.2018 the complainant was travelling from Puri to Durg with her two minor sons, in a reserved air condition sleeper class in train no. 18425, operated from Zone Sambalpur (Orissa) of East Coast Railway. As it was night, the complainant and her children were resting in their reserved seats after having food etc. It is alleged that when she woke up at 3.50 a.m. she found that her handbag kept with her was stolen by an unknown thief near Sambalpur. The complainant informed the coach attendant and the TTE accompanying her and lodged a report with GRP Titlagarh, respondent no. 3. It is alleged that the said handbag contained four tolas of gold necklace, three gold rings (five grams each), gold bangles, Rs. 20,000/0- (rupees twenty thousand) cash and SBI AMT card, mobile phone of Redmi Company, Voter ID card and silver anklets and toe rings worth Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lack) in total. It is further alleged that the complainant contacted the respondents several times but the problem was not resolved.
3. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission, seeking compensation of Rs. 3 lakh with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and Rs.
1 lakh and advocate's fee.
Page 2 of 17 of RP No. 2381 of 2024ft
4. The respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'railway') contested the complaint by filing written statement stating that the railway is responsible for taking the passenger safely to the destination and if the passenger travels with expensive luggage, then he travels at his own risk and the railway is not responsible for any theft or loss. It was further stated that the complainant had neither booked in the parcel nor booking receipt was obtained from the booking officer. Therefore, the railways department is not responsible for theft of the luggage or any other incident. As per Rule 1101 of Indian Railway Commercial Manual Chapter xi booking of certain Valuable articles as mentioned in para 1 of schedule II of the railway (extent of monetary liability and prescription of percentage charge) rules, 1990 if a passenger is travelling with valuable luggage, then it is necessary to declare it. Otherwise, as per Section 103(2) of the Railway Act and Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989, if the booking (reservation) of any goods is not done by the passenger along with the ticket, then the Railway cannot be held responsible or liable for the theft or destruction of such goods at that time. It was further stated that besides this, the railway warns the passengers by putting up advertisements at various places that the passengers should protect their luggage themselves and the passengers are instructed to take proper precautions during the journey. It was further stated that there is no information about what luggage the applicant was carrying with her while travelling was given to respondents.
It was further stated that the District Commission did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case for compensation of any loss suffered during railways journey under section 13-1 (a) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It is further Page 3 of 17 of RP IMO. Z3B1 OT ZU24 stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The District Forum vide its order on 13.10.2023 partly allowed the complaint against respondent no. 1 and directed it to pay Rs.3 lakh with interest at the rate of 6% per annum simple interest and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. The complaint against respondents no. 2 and 3 is dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the District Forum's order dated 13.10.2013, the respondents filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
7. The State Commission, by its judgment dated 06.06.2024, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 13.10.2023 of the District Commission.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 of the State Commission, the complainant has filed the present revision petition before this Commission.
9. Before us, the counsel for the petitioner / complainant has argued that the State Commission has failed to consider the fact that the railway was negligent in providing service to the complainant when they failed to protect the complainant from unauthorised person. He further argued that the railway is responsible for the safety and security of the travelling passengers and their luggage/baggage and it is clear from the facts that unauthorised person managed to enter the reserved coach of the train and managed to take away the hand baggage / purse from the complainant's berth. He further argued that Page 4 of 17 of RP No. 2381 of 2024 the State Commission overlooked the important fact that the complainant has given information of the incident to the attendant and the TTI and it was the duty of the attendant /TTI to provide copy of blank FIR and they should have been intimated to GRP at next station but they have not done so. He further argued that as the State Commission has not considered the important facts, therefore the order of the State Commission is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Sumati Devi vs. Union of India, civil appeal no. 2252 of 1999, this Commission's Order dated 23.10.2002 passed in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave and Anr., Order dated 03.09.2019 in Divisional Railways Manager, Western Railway Divisional Office, Vadodara vs. Raju Devi Suryavanshi & Anr.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent has reiterated the facts and argued that the State Commission has passed a just and reasoned order. He further argued that the State Commission has rightly considered that as per Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989, the Railway Administration is not liable for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and issued a receipt for it. He further argued that the petitioner / complainant failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that unwanted elements were present in the coach. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Dinesh Agarwal vs. Indian Railways 2015 SCC Online NCDRC 3399. He further argued that the petitioner / complainant ought to have taken the appropriate precaution during the journey to safeguard their belongings but Page 5 of 17 of RP No.^^l of 2024 she failed to do so. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Station Superintendent & Anr. Vs. Surender Bhola, Civil Appeal No. 7116 of 2017 dated 15.06.2023 wherein it has been held that mere allegation of theft does not constitute any deficiency on the part of the Railways.
11. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant and the learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and perused materials available on record.
The respondent no. 3 was proceeded ex-parte, vide Order dated 07.04.2025.
12. The scope of Section 100 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 in many cases before the Commission in the past. This Commission in 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 of this Commission in this case 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 & Page 6 of 17 of RP No. 2381 of 2024 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 not able 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.
xxxx
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 1st AC, 2nd AC, 3rd AC and 1st 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.
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.Page 7 of 17 of RP No. ^381 of 2024
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 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. " Relying on this judgment, the respondent argued that the contention of the revisionists that the Id. 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 Page 8 of 17 of RP No. 2381 of 2024 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. "
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 L ,, Page 9 of 17 of RP No. 2381 0^2024 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 of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. "
13. Similar issue was considered by this Commission in Ashok Kumar Purohit Vs. Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Central Railway & Ann, RP No. 1353 of 2019, decided on 16.10.2023. Extract of relevant paras of this order is 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. , Page 10 of 17 of RP No. 2381 of 2024
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. I/Ve 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 Page 11 of 17 of RP No. 2381 of 2024 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 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. "
XXXX
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. Surender Bhola, 2023 SCC Online SC 741, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
Page 12 of 17 of RP No. 2381 of 2024"5. l/l/e 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:
"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. "
< Page 13 of 17 of RP No. 2381 of 2024
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. Son! 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 godds/items, which have been stolen or snatched, which has actually happened in the present cases.Page 14 of 17 of RP No. 2381 of 2024
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 Page 15 of 17 ofr'^'No. 2381 of 2024 * 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. In this case, the theft occurred in a running train when the complainant was travelling along with her two sons. It is stated by the complainant that when she woke up, she found that her items contained in the bag had been stolen. It has not been stated in the complaint that the coach has been unlocked or that the TTE was not present or that she had seen any unauthorised person in the coach. No such negligence has been attributed to the railway.
15. As regards question of liability of railway with respect to loss/theft of luggage of passengers in a reserved Coach, as has been held by this Commission in many cases, which have been cited in the preceding paras, railway will be responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by passengers in the reserved Coach if it is established that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway or any of its employees. There is no such allegation in this case.
16. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality.
Page 16 of 17 of RP No. 2381 of 2024»
17. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. All pending I.A.s shall stand disposed of accordingly.
i Sd/-
( DR. INDER JIT SINGH )
PRESIDING MEMBER i
Sd/-
( DR. SADHNA SHANKER )
I
Naresh/reserved MEMBER
Page 17 of 17 of RP No. 2381 of 2024