A Ruling In Consumer Interest Lays Down The Responsibility Of Railways

A consumer court in Chandigarh has held that once a passenger buys a ticket and travels by train, it is the responsibility of the railway authorities to see that the person reaches the destination safely with his luggage and belongings.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission awarded a compensation of Rs 1.55 lakh to the family, whose luggage was stolen during a train journey.

The luggage contained valuables worth Rs 1 lakh, including gold ornaments and a mobile phone as well. The family alleged that unauthorised persons had entered their coach without a ticket and no due diligence was carried out by the authorities on duty to get rid of them.

The SCDRC held that gross negligence and deficiency in service by the staff, who failed to remain vigilant to prevent entry of unauthorised persons in the compartment, resulted in the theft.

"This latest order by the commission will have a huge impact on the accountability of the Railways towards the protection of not only passengers, but also of their luggage," Advocate Tushar Agarwal told BQ Prime.

"The railway authorities cannot escape from its liability to compensate the passengers for theft or stolen items on vague and arbitrary grounds," Agarwal said. "The authorities have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no negligence on the part of any railway staff."

In the past as well, passengers have been considered as consumers who have purchased the tickets for consideration in exchange for the service of travelling from one place to another provided by the Railways, and the railway authorities have been held liable for gross negligence on the part of its staff, according to Advocate Shashank Agarwal.

The SCDRC's decision on April 6 has been guided by precedents emanating out of rulings of the Supreme Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which have earlier decided in the favour of the consumers on account of negligence on the part of the railway authorities.

While laying out the responsibility of the Railways towards its passengers, the SCDRC highlighted the difficulty the family must have faced on account of their luggage being stolen. It was categorically stated that it was a breach of common duty of reasonable care on the part of the authorities and they cannot escape their liability.

The order has reaffirmed the doctrine of reasonable care, which all the carriers—including the Railways—are bound to exercise, Advocate Saurabh Kumar said.

"The decision, unless overturned by the NCDRC or the Supreme Court, will now ensure that reasonable care is being followed by the railways during the journey, and unauthorised entry is strictly prohibited to ensure no such event happens again as in the present case," Kumar said.

Agarwal said that the liability of the Railways in similar cases of negligence would differ from case to case.

There cannot be any blanket formula and the most important yardstick to decide the liability of the Railways would be the amount of negligence on the part of the staff, he said.

Kumar said that it is important to understand that the State Commission decided the matter after being satisfied that the Railways was deficient in its service.

The Railways has not been held liable for theft or robbery, but it has been held to be accountable as it failed to exercise due and reasonable care, Kumar said.

The order will compel the Railways to direct its staff to remain vigilant towards the safety and convenience of the passengers and to do their duties with utmost sincerity, Agarwal said.