Rajasthan State Commission Sets Aside Railway Theft Award, Holds Unbooked Luggage Snatching Not Deficiency in Service

The Rajasthan SCDRC Circuit Bench at Bikaner set aside a district forum award of over Rs. 1.12 lakh against North Western Railway, finding no proved negligence and no valid evidence affidavit from the complainant.

The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, sitting at its Circuit Bench in Bikaner, has set aside a district forum order that had directed North Western Railway to pay over Rs. 1.12 lakh to a passenger whose handbag was snatched from a reserved coach in November 2014. The two-member bench of Mr. A.K. Agarwal and Mr. R.N. Sarswat, in First Appeal No. 133/2022 decided on 1 June 2026, held that the theft of unbooked personal luggage remaining in the passenger's own custody does not amount to a deficiency in service by the Railways. The Commission also found that the complainant had failed to file a proper evidence affidavit, rendering the district forum's findings unsustainable in law.

The Incident and the Complaint Before the District Forum

Smt. Abha Sharma, a resident of Sri Ganganagar, booked a ticket online for Train No. 12455 (Sarai Rohilla to Sri Ganganagar) for travel on 4 November 2014. She was allotted seat no. 9 in the 3rd AC coach under PNR No. 2526799863.

According to her complaint, she boarded the reserved coach at around 10:40 p.m. and placed her luggage on the reserved seat. Two ladies then took away her handbag and quickly alighted from the coach. She called the railway helpline 1800-111-322, and some policemen arrived and made enquiries but did not apprehend the accused. She also lodged an FIR at the Railway Police Station, Sri Ganganagar, on 5 November 2014.

The handbag was stated to contain two gold chains, a mobile handset, cash of Rs. 2,000/-, a PAN card, two ATM cards, goggles, and identity cards. The total value was claimed at Rs. 1,09,000/-. The complainant alleged that no TTE or police personnel were present in the reserved coach and that unauthorised persons were moving freely inside it.

She filed Consumer Complaint No. CC/631/2016 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Sri Ganganagar on 19 May 2015, seeking Rs. 1,09,000/- for the loss, Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental and physical distress, and Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation expenses.

The Railways' Defence Before the District Forum

The Station Superintendent, North Western Railway, Sri Ganganagar; the Station Superintendent, Sarai Rohilla; and the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, filed a detailed written statement raising several objections.

They argued that the DCDRC lacked jurisdiction in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Sonic Surgical case (SLP No. 1560/2004) and the NCDRC's judgment in Neeva Agarwal (RP No. 85/2013). They contended that jurisdiction to entertain such claims vested exclusively with the Railway Claims Tribunal. They also raised territorial jurisdiction, arguing the incident occurred at Delhi's Sarai Rohilla station while the complaint was filed at Sri Ganganagar. Additionally, they argued that IRCTC was a necessary party since the ticket was booked on its website, and that under Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, the Railways could not be held liable for luggage neither booked with the Railways nor in its exclusive custody.

Mr. C.R. Kumawat, Senior Regional Manager (Commerce), NWR Bikaner, tendered evidence by affidavit in support of the written statement.

What the District Forum Decided

The DCDRC, Sri Ganganagar allowed the complaint by its order dated 16 August 2022. It directed the appellants jointly and severally to pay Rs. 1,09,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (19 May 2015) until realisation, Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony, and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses.

On territorial jurisdiction, the DCDRC held that since the complainant was travelling to Sri Ganganagar and had lodged the FIR there, and since the appellants maintained offices within its territorial jurisdiction, the forum was competent to decide the complaint. It also held that booking a ticket through IRCTC's website did not make IRCTC a necessary party. The DCDRC found that the complainant's version stood established from the evidence on record and had not been rebutted by the Railways.

Grounds of Appeal Before the State Commission

Aggrieved by the district forum's order, the appellants preferred First Appeal No. 133/2022 before the Rajasthan SCDRC. They argued that the DCDRC erred in entertaining the complaint despite lacking territorial jurisdiction, given that the incident occurred at Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. They further contended that an efficacious alternative remedy before the Railway Claims Tribunal was available and that the DCDRC erred in holding the Railways deficient in service when the facts cast serious doubt on the complainant's version.

Mr. Anil Kumar Raina, Senior Regional Manager (Commerce), OIC, North Western Railway, Bikaner, tendered evidence by affidavit in support of the appeal. The respondent/complainant was not represented before the State Commission.

The State Commission's Reasoning on Jurisdiction

The Commission acknowledged that the alleged incident occurred at Delhi's Sarai Rohilla station. However, it noted that the complainant was travelling to Sri Ganganagar, the FIR was lodged there, and the appellants admittedly carried on business and maintained offices within the territorial jurisdiction of the DCDRC, Sri Ganganagar. On that basis, it held that a part of the cause of action arose within the district forum's jurisdiction.

On the question of whether the Consumer Forum's jurisdiction was ousted by the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the Commission relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 305, which held that the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy and the jurisdiction of consumer fora cannot be ousted unless specifically barred by statute. The Commission therefore held the complaint maintainable before the consumer forum.

However, it immediately added that maintainability alone does not establish deficiency in service.

Section 100 of the Railways Act and the Deficiency Question

The Commission turned to the central question: whether the Railways could be held liable for the snatching of the complainant's handbag from the reserved coach.

It noted that the complainant's own case was that the handbag was taken away immediately after she boarded the coach, while the train was still at the platform. There was no material on record to show that she raised any alarm, sought assistance from co-passengers, or made any prompt attempt to prevent the accused from escaping. The Commission found this conduct relevant to assessing the credibility of the allegations.

The Commission then applied Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, which provides that the Railway Administration shall not be responsible for loss or damage to luggage unless such luggage has been booked and a railway receipt issued, except where the loss is proved to be due to negligence or misconduct of the Railway Administration or its servants. The handbag was admittedly unbooked personal luggage that remained in the complainant's own custody.

The Commission relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Station Superintendent & Ors. v. Surender Bhola, Civil Appeal No. 7116 of 2017 (decided 15 June 2023), which held that theft of personal belongings cannot be equated with a deficiency of service by the Railways, and that the Railways cannot be held responsible under consumer law unless explicit administrative negligence is proved. It also referred to Ram Priya Saran Sinha v. Union of India, (2019) 17 SCC 614, which affirmed that passengers are expected to take care of their own luggage when it is in their custody inside the carriage.

The Commission found that apart from bald allegations that no TTE or police were present in the coach, no cogent evidence was led to establish any specific act of negligence by the Railway Administration. It held that leaving the handbag unattended immediately after boarding amounted to contributory negligence and a failure to exercise reasonable care. It also observed that the fare paid by a passenger is towards transportation and does not cast an absolute insurer-like liability on the Railways for unbooked personal luggage in the passenger's own custody.

Absence of a Proper Evidence Affidavit

The Commission identified a further, independent ground for setting aside the district forum's order. From the order sheet dated 17 November 2016, it appeared that the complainant had not filed a separate evidence affidavit. Instead, a request was made that the affidavit accompanying the complaint be treated as evidence. The Commission held this practice contrary to settled procedure.

It referred to the NCDRC's ruling in Chikaodili O.A. v. State Bank of India, 2021 (NCDRC), which reinforced that consumer courts follow summary but not casual procedures, and that under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (corresponding to Section 38(9) of the 2019 Act), the forum is vested with the same powers as a civil court for receiving evidence on affidavits. The NCDRC's ruling in Conforce Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Girish Malhotra, 2023 (NCDRC), was also cited to the effect that a party must file a formal affidavit in evidence, failing which pleadings do not automatically constitute substantive evidence on which a decree can be passed.

The Commission applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 148, which held that “pleadings are not evidence” and that a verification affidavit filed with a complaint cannot be treated as an evidence affidavit. Where facts are disputed by the opposite party, new testimony on oath must be formally tendered. The Commission held that the district forum committed a material error of law in passing a final order by relying solely on the complaint's short affidavit when no dedicated evidence affidavit had been filed after the stage of admission.

Order

The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Bikaner, set aside the impugned order dated 16 August 2022 passed by the DCDRC, Sri Ganganagar in CC/631/2016. The consumer complaint filed by Smt. Abha Sharma stands dismissed. No order as to costs was made. The original record along with a copy of the order was directed to be transmitted back to the DCDRC, Sri Ganganagar, forthwith.