State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India vs Nishant Kumar on 10 March, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 25.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.03.2026
REVISION PETITION NO. 2166 OF 2024
(From the order dated 16.05.2024 in RA No. 46/2023 and FA No. 848/2023
of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Union of India
(Through General Manager,
East Central Railway)
Central Railway Hazipur
Vaishali, Bihar Petitioner (s)
Versus
Nishant Kumar
(Q NO.-125H, BHEL Township,
Sector 17, Noida, UP 20301 Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
For the Petitioner(s) None
For the Respondent(s) Respondent in Person
ORDER
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 58(l)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 16.05.2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in RA No 46/2023 and First Appeal (FA) No. 848/2023 in which order dated 07.01.2023 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gautambudh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 179/2021 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the State Commission in RA/46/2023 & FA/848/2023.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Railways) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 1 of 16 District Commission, the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Commission. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 27.08.2024. Parties filed Written Arguments on 25.02.2025 (Petitioner) and 28.11.2025 (Respondent) respectively.
3. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -
On 14.09.2020, the Complainant had booked 2AC train tickets for journey along with his wife and his 21/2 year son in Sampoorn Kranti Special Train from New Delhi to Patna on 11th November, 2020. The Complainant had paid Rs.3855.40 for the tickets. The complainant was allotted Coach No. A2 with Berth No. 35 (Side Lower) and 36 (Side Upper). In the intervening night of llth/12th Nov.2020 at around 4 AM, an incident of theft occurred with his wife inside the train Coach, who was on berth No. 35, noticed that her red colored hand bag, which was there with her at birth No. 35 till 3-30 AM, when she last feed her son with bottle, was missing (with mobile, cash, purse etc.). She immediately informed her husband and they raised alarm in the coach.
The coach attendant was informed with a request to inform TC on duty and other security staff. While searching along with the coach attendant, the cap of feeding bottle was found near the junction of coach 1AC and 2AC. The TC advised complainant to file complaint on next stoppage with GRP. The complainant insisted to provide the complaint form/register which is meant for registering complaints regarding crimes committed in train while travelling without going to GRP Thana as per various instructions displayed in coach. The TC, RPF as well as GRP ASI claimed that there is no such provision and complainant has to visit GRP Police station, if he wishes to lodge the complaint. After denial by on duty Railway staff to lodge the complaint in train, the complainant raised the issue with various senior Railway officials over WhatsApp. Only after intervention of Sr. Divisional Commandant, complainant was provided with complaint Form. The Complainant handed over the duly filled complaint form to RPF on duty in the running train. Thereafter, the complainant was called at Patna RPF and then at Patna GRP to submit a fresh complaint. After submitting fresh complaint at Patna GRP and after follow up with Inspector RPF, DDU and even with SP (Railway) Allahabad, the complaint was registered with FIR 175/2020 dated 16th December 2020, after 35 days of incident. After finding no response from railway in complaint, the complainant had raised the matter before Public Grievance Officer of Indian railway on Central Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) portal of Ministry of RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 2 of 16 Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India with complaint number MORLY/E/2021/00944 dated 21.01.2021.The complainant registered the complaint with Mr. Vivek Srivastava, Executive Director PG, Room No. 507A, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi, which was routed to Shri SKS Rathore, Sr. DSC, DRM Office, Danapur and thereafter to Ashish Mishra, Sr. DSC, DRM Building, European Colony, Candauli, closed the grievance vide his reply dated 08.02.2021. In the complaint the DOB of the complainant was wrongly mentioned and the same was brought in the notice of RPF inspector and rectification was requested for which complainant has shared copy of Aadhar Card with RPF. As per reply, one person was arrested on 04.01.2021, which is 17 days before the complaint was lodged on CPGRAMS but no communication regarding this was sent to the complainant. The reply document states the theft of cash amount as Rs.500/-, however as per FIR, the amount was approx. 1500/-. Having no relief from the Railways, the complainant filed complaint before the District Commission.
4. Vide Order dated 07.01.2023, in the CC No. 179/2021 the District Commission has allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party/Railways to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- in total for loss of cash amount, important documents, loss of belongings and for mental agony, within 30 days.
5. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 07.01.2023 of District Commission, Petitioner(s) appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 16.05.2024 dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order dated 07.01.2023 passed by the District Commission.
6. The Petitioner(s) has challenged the said Order dated 16.05.2024 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(i) The impugned order is illegal, unjust, unfair, improper and contrary to the facts, law and records and is liable to be set aside. The order of the State Commission is perverse and contradicts the facts and records of the case.
The State Commission failed appreciate that the passenger is supposed to declare any valuable articles before the commencement of journey at boarding station and get these articles insured by paying the necessary charges to the railway administration taking extra precaution as stated under Rule 130(I)(IV) of IRCA No. 24.
(ii) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the passenger had to take care of his own luggage and article in accordance with rule 506.2 of Indian Railway Conference Association (IRCA) No. 24, No. 2016.
RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 3 of 16(iii) The State Commission failed to acknowledge that in the case of Station Superintendent & Ors. Vs. Surender Bhola, Civil Appeal No. 7116 of 2017, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that theft cannot be considered a deficiency in Railway service. If a passenger is unable to protect their belongings, the Railway cannot be held responsible.
(iv) The State Commission failed to appreciate that there was no negligence on the part of Railways as everybody whom the Complainant contacted either by phone or message or complaint regarding his grievance, he received proper response through all channels and he was assisted accordingly.
(v) The State Commission disregarded the fact that the Complainant reported the theft of Rs.2000/- approx., out of which Rs. 1100/- was recovered by the police but refused by the Complainant. The complainant reported Rs.2000/- approx., in his message to Rail SR but later on mentioned Rs. 1500/- in FIR which are contradictory. The value of the stolen articles kept in the handbag has neither been declared by the Complainant in his petition nor produced copy of invoice as a proof of purchase with the petition. Such claim was never corroborated with additional relevant documents at any stage of litigation by him.
(vi) The State Commission disregarded the fact that iron rings were provided beneath every berth to fasten the luggage to keep them safe especially during night hours, which the complainant did not use for fastening the luggage.
(vii) State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that appeal was made by the Petitioner as ex-parte order was passed by the District Commission without hearing the Railway side.
(viii) The State Commission failed to appreciate that initially compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the District Commission, was reduced to Rs.50,000/- by its order dated 29.05.2023. In the meantime the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Station Superintendent & Ors. Vs. Surender Bhola (supra) held that theft cannot be considered a deficiency in Railway service. Accordingly, a review petition was filed before the State Commission for recall of its order dated 29.05.2023 in the light of the above judgment of Apex Court. On the other hand, the Petitioner filed Revision Petition No. 1712/2023 before the National Commission against the order dated 29.05.2023. During the pendency of the Review Application, the Revision Petition was disposed of by the National Commission vide order dated 26.10.2023 setting aside the judgment and directed the State Commission to decide the appeal afresh by giving opportunity to the Petitioner. Thereupon, the State Commission without considering the grounds of Railways and without taking note of RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 4 of 16 compensation amount awarded in its previous judgment dated 29.05.2023 has not only considered the order of District Commission justified but also imposed Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost treating the appeal filed without reason. Thus, the observation taken by the State Commission in its order is not reasonable and justified in as much the first order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the State Commission.
(ix) The State Commission disregarded the fact that appeal was decided afresh as per order dated 26.10.2023 of the National Commission in RP/1712/2023. As such, observation of the State Commission that Appeal has been filed without any reason, few other comments regarding unnecessary payment of Bonus of Railway employees in Crores of Rupees, taking suvidha shulk by Railway staff from unauthorized passengers etc. shows bias attitude of State Commission for Railway.
7. Heard the Respondent, who was present in person. The Petitioner was unrepresented, although, the Petitioner was represented on the last date i.e. 22.05.2025, however, on an earlier date also i.e. 03.03.2025, the Petitioner was unrepresented. Accordingly, it was decided to take up the case on merits based on available records. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
7.1 In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 7), the petitioner submitted in the written arguments that the order of the State Commission is entirely perverse and contradicts the facts and records of the case, as well as the settled legal principles. It is further submitted that the passenger is required to declare any valuable articles before the commencement of the journey at the boarding station and get these articles insured by payment the necessary charges to the railway administration, taking extra precaution as stated under Rule 130 (I)(IV) of IRCA No. 24. The passenger must take care of their own luggage and articles in accordance with Rule 506.2 of the Indian Railway Conference Association (IRCA) No. 24, No. 216. The Petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme, wherein it was held that theft cannot be considered a deficiency in railway service. If a passenger is unable to protect his belongings, the Railway cannot be held responsible. It is further submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the Railways, as all parties contacted by the Complainant, either by phone, message, or complaint, responded appropriately and assisted the Complainant accordingly. It is also submitted that out of theft of Rs.2000, Rs. 1100/- was recovered by the police but was refused by the Complainant.
RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 5 of 167.2 On the other hand Respondent contended that as per Section 59(1) read along with Section 38(10) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the National Commission has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the IA/16716/2024 filed by the Respondent against the Petitioner under Section 383 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for initiation of proceedings under Section 215 of BNSS for the offences U/s 201, 216, 217, 229 (1), 234, 236 and 237 of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS), 2023. It is further contended that the Petitioner does not deserve any consideration in the light of the judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KD Sharma v. Sail in Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2008 and in the matter of Ramjas Foundation and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 6662 of 2004, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that those who does not approach the Court with Clean hands or has misrepresented/suppressed material facts having bearing on the case should not be entertained and held guilty for Contempt of Court. The Respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABCD v. Union of India in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 191 of 2018, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the issue of filing false affidavit. It is also contended that the Petitioner has admitted that one person in this case has been arrested by them and Rs. 1100/- has been recovered. The Petitioner has not brought anything on record that the thief was a banafide passenger. The presence of unauthorized person inside the coach and the incident of theft both are admitted by the Petitioner. It is also contended that the presence of unauthorized person between 2200 hrs. to 0600 hrs. is a case of deficiency in service by the Railways. As per circular No. 2017/TG-1/20/P/19 dated 31.08.2017 issued by Govt, of India, Ministry of Railways, sleeping accommodation is provided to passengers of reserved coaches having sleeping accommodation in between 2200 hrs. to 0600 hrs. It is also contended that the services of sleeping accommodation is heavily charged by the Railway department i.e. approx.. 3 to 4 times of the fare of General Class passengers. As per Circular No. 98/TG-V/12/1 dated 11.09.1998, Railway and its on-duty employees are duty bound to prevent unauthorized entry inside the coach especially during permissible sleeping time from 2200 hrs. to 0600 hrs. Hence, failure to prevent entry of unauthorized person inside the reserved coach during the said hours, amounts negligence of duty and hence deficiency in service. It is also contended that the facts and circumstances of the case, which has been relied upon by the Petitioner Railways (Station Superintendent & Anr. v. Surender Bhola in Civil Appeal No. 7116/2017) are different from the present case. It is further contended that the Petitioner has not brought on record any such fact which calls for interference by this Commission with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below (Relied upon Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31). In support of his contentions the Respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by this Commission in Indian Railways v. Manju Kumar, FA/248/2017 decided on 07.08.2025.
RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 6 of 168. 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 Pena! 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'bie 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 retied upon judgment of Hon'bie Supreme Court in Station Superintendent & Anr. Vs. Surender Bhoia (Civil Appeal No. 7116 of 2017) decided on 15.06.2023 in which Hon'bie 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, 2fd AC, 3d 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.RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 7 of 16
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 ofpassenger 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 dosing 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 ofservice on account of negligence of its employees.
13. In Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwaiia ( 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 Genera! 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 NCDRC222, 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 RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 8 of 16 there is negligence on the part of the Railways or any of its servants, provided, of course, that the passenger himse/f has taken responsible care of his persona! 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 Raiwiays 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 thatjurisdiction 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 ofany 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 RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 9 of 16 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 orjurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld."
9. Similar issue was considered by this Commission in Ashok Kumar Purohit Vs. Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Central Railway & Anr., RP No. 1353 of 2019, decided on 16.10.2023. Extract of relevant paras of this order is reproduced below:
"9. In Dinesh Agrawa! 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-deiivery 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.
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 RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 10 of 16 steeping at the time of theft took place. Therefore, they possibly cannot have persona! 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 dear 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(l)(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 RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 11 of 16 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."
XX XX
11. The case cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/comp/ainant which is Union of India through its Genera! 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 Bhoia, 2023 SCC Online SC 741, the Hon 'b/e 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:RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 12 of 16
"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 toss 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 Agarwaiia & 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 Mughai Sarai railway station and had committed theft of the purse being carried by complainant no.l. 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 Mughai 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 RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 13 of 16 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 ofgoods/items, which have been stolen or snatched, which has actually happened in the present cases.
16. In Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwaiia 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 Centra! 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 persona! baggage as expected ofa 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 Vs. Sunii 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-heid baggage, including from unknown persons who gained entry unauthorizediy 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-V/12/3 dated RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 14 of 16 11.09.1998, which prescribe certain duties of train conductor in 1st AC, Z"-id AC, Zd AC and 1st 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."
10. In Union of India through Ministry of Railways Vs. K.S. Bhatti, Revision L Petition No. 886-887, decided on 20.08.2025^ this Commission observed-
"13.1 The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Station Superintendent & another V Surender Bhoia also does not provide much help to the petitioners regarding protection of section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 as in the said case, the Supreme Court only made general observations under given facts and circumstances of said case without laying law on protection of section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989. The petitioners are Hable and responsible for the loss caused to the respondent due to the negligence on the part of the coach attendant and the benefit under section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 is not available to the petitioners."RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 15 of 16
a
11. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments1 that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Commission and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record. We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission, District Commission and other relevant records. The State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order and we see no reason to interfere with its findings. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. Accordingly, order of the State Commission is upheld and Revision Petition is dismissed.
12. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(DR. INDERJIT SINGH) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
( DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.)
jr/Court-3/AB MEMBER
{
1 Ruby ( Chandra ) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 77, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson ( India ) Limited and Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 286, T.Ramalingeswara Rao ( Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608, Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31 RP 2166 OF 2024 Page 16 of 16