Luggage of Railway passenger is stolen-Railway liable to pay compensation under consumer Act

MUMBAI: Upholding a district consumer forum order, the state commission held Western Railways guilty for deficiency in service after a passenger's valuables were stolen during a long-distance journey in 2009. Along with the Rs 28,425 compensation ordered by the forum, the commission also directed the railways to pay Borivli resident Meenu Chhazed an additional Rs 25,000 as costs incurred in the appeal. 

On October 12, 2009, Chhazed was travelling in an Indore-bound train with her children. At 11pm, when the train halted at Surat, she realized her valuables, including cash, jewellery and PAN card, were stolen. Chhazed tried to find an attendant. After some time, a ticket checker arrived and she narrated the incident to him. He told her that the Gujarat railway police would be available only at Bharuch station. However, at Bharuch, neither the attendant nor the ticket checker returned. Later, two railway police officers arrived, but refused to record her FIR, saying she should have disembarked at Surat. Although Chhazed later made sure an FIR was lodged, an offence was not registered, and the FIR copy was not given to her. The offence was registered by Surat railway police two months later. On January 1, 2010, the stolen items were recovered and returned to her. 


On December 5, 2009, Chhazed filed a complaint with a district forum. The forum held the railways guilty and ordered it to pay her compensation. An aggrieved WR filed an appeal with the Maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission in 2011. The railways referred to Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 and contended that it was not responsible for the loss of luggage since the luggage was not booked and a receipt was not given to Chhazed. 

However, the commission held that this provision is applicable to the railway department as a carrier of luggage and the articles stolen are not luggage. It also stated that as per the citizens charter on passenger services, it was the ticket checker's duty to lodge an FIR with the GRP to enable the passenger to continue her journey. "As against this, he told the respondent (Chhazed) that GRP will be available at next station and the GRP told her that she should have got down at Surat. This amounts to deficiency on the part of the ticket checker."

Print Page