|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pushpa Girimaji on the liability of the Railways if baggage is lost or stolen while travelling in a train Thefts on trains are commonplace. Locks and chains sold in abundance at railway stations are an indication of that. In the past few years, the apex consumer court has forced the Railways to take responsibility for such thefts and pay damages to the affected persons. However, its recent order in case of Savitri Awasthi draws a distinction between the reserved and non-reserved compartments and says that the liability of the Railways in respect of lost or stolen passenger baggage is restricted to reserved compartments only. In December 1994, Savitri Awasthi undertook a journey to Neelanchal Express at Kharagpur. The next day when she reached the New Delhi railway station, she found her briefcase containing valuables missing. She lodged a complaint with the Railway police as well as the Railway authorities, but to no avail. She, then, filed a case in the consumer court. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission pointed out that the case was different from the earlier cases in that the passenger was travelling in an unreserved compartment with no coach attendant. The onus of protecting their personal belongings rested with the passengers and not the Railways. In an earlier case of M. Kanthimathi vs the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, some miscreants entered the reserved compartment in which Kanthimathi and her husband were travelling and snatched her gold chain, (RP No 1158 of 2001). The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission asked the Railways to make good the loss of the gold chain, besides paying her Rs 10,000 for the mental agony she suffered. The commission had also rejected in this case, the Railways’ defence that in view of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, the Railways cannot be held liable for loss or theft of passengers’ baggage and said if loss was caused due to the negligence or misconduct on part of the Railways or any of its servants, then the Railways would be held liable. It held the Railways guilty of negligence on two counts: In allowing unauthorised passengers into a reserved compartment and not providing the required assistance to the passengers. According to Section 100 of the Railways Act, "Responsibility as a 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 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". The commission had held that the loss was certainly due to the negligence of the Railway servants. In case of General Manager, Northern Railway vs Amarnath Agrawal (RP No 2326 of 2002), the National Commission had asked the Railways to compensate the passengers, whose chains were snatched through an open window of the coach. The complainant and his
wife were travelling from Mumbai to Vasco Da Gama by Mahalakshmi
Express. There was no electricity on the train and windows of the train
had no glass panes, unauthorised persons were allowed into the reserved
compartment. At about 3 a.m., the gold chain of the complainant’s wife
was snatched. So also that of another passenger. Co-passengers tried to
pull the alarm chain and found that it was not working. They rushed to
the adjoining compartment to pull the chain, but by then, it was too
late. The attitude of the Railway staff was uncooperative. Holding the
Railways negligent on several counts, the consumer court awarded Rs
32,000 as compensation to the affected passengers. |
