Consumer Commission Holds Northern Railway Liable For Theft In Rajdhani 3AC Coach

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Northern Railway liable for deficiency in service after a passenger's handbag was stolen from a reserved 3AC coach of the Rajdhani Express, according to a report by the Economic Times.

What Happened On The Train

According to the report, the theft took place on a Rajdhani express (12423), which departed on December 14, 2021. The complainant was travelling with his wife and child.

The handbag, belonging to the passenger's wife, contained a gold mangalsutra weighing around 15 grams and valued at Rs 65,000, an SBI passbook and around Rs 5,000 in cash.

The theft was discovered when the train reached Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Railway Station, formerly known as Mughal Sarai. The couple tried to locate the coach attendant but found that the attendant was not available. The incident was immediately reported to the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) and the Railway Protection Force (RPF) staff present.

According to the ET report, the husband had also filed a Zero FIR on December 16, 2021, which was then forwarded to the concerned Government Railway Police (GRP) police station in Kanpur.

The stolen items were not recovered in due time, forcing the passenger to approach the consumer commission, alleging deficiency in service by Northern Railway.

Why Was The Northern Railway Held Liable

The Northern Railway argued that it could not be held responsible for the loss of unbooked luggage. It also claimed that the station master at Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Railway Station had not been informed about the theft, according to the report.

However, the commission found that Northern Railway's own documents showed that the theft had been reported to an RPF official during the journey.

The commission relied on evidence indicating negligence, contradictions in Northern Railway's defence and the failure to produce relevant records.

The commission observed that once Northern Railway admitted that its RPF escort had received information about the theft, it could not simultaneously claim that the railway administration had no knowledge of the incident.

The commission also noted that Northern Railway did not dispute the allegation that the coach attendant was absent when the theft occurred. It also failed to produce the duty roster to establish that the attendant was present and performing assigned duties.

Rs 80,000 Compensation Ordered

The commission held that the immediate report to the RPF, the Zero FIR, the absence of the coach attendant and Northern Railway's failure to produce records in its possession collectively indicated deficiency in service, according to the report.

The court directed Northern Railway to pay Rs 70,000 to the complainants, along with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until payment.

Northern Railway was also ordered to pay Rs 10,000 for mental harassment and agony.

The amount has to be paid within one month of receiving the certified copy of the order. If the payment is delayed, the complainants will be entitled to interest at 12 per cent per annum on the entire amount from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation.