President Kulwinder Singh Pannu and member Raj Kumar Shukla of the Pathankot District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held Northern Railways liable for deficiency in service after theft of a wife's handbag containing Rs 5000 petty cash, mangalsutra and a SBI passbook. The lady was travelling in the reserved 3AC coach of Rajdhani train no. 12423 with her husband and child.The consumer commission pointed out that while the Indian Railways typically is not liable to pay compensation for loss of unbooked luggage, there was an exception in this case because the loss was due to the negligence of railway staff. Another shocking aspect was that the theft occurred when the train was in Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Railway Station and passengers reported that the coach attendant was missing. They had to report the incident to the RPF escort and TTE. The FIR was filed much later after the train reached New Delhi. The railways however, claimed that the station master had not received any information about this theft.The consumer commission however, argued that since the railways admitted that the RPF Escort had received the complaint, it can't also claim that the railway administration had no information about the theft. The consumer commission also noted that the railways never disputed the absence of the coach attendant and failed to provide the duty roaster to prove that the coach attendant was present and on duty at that time.Before you continue readingHow financially free are you?Most people overestimate their financial freedom. Discover your Financial Freedom score through a quick surveyAlso read: Passenger should protect luggage from theft, not Railways: Delhi HCKeep reading to know the full details of this case (Complaint No: 139 of 2022, dated June 30, 2026) and find out what transpired and why. What happened in this case?This theft happened in the Rajdhani Express (no. 12423) which departed on December 14, 2021. The complainant (husband) was travelling with his wife and child and booked three tickets in the 3AC Coach (PNR No. 636-0887875).His wife was carrying a lady's purse containing her gold ornaments like a mangal sutra weighing 1.5 Tola or say 15 grams worth Rs 65,000, an original SBI passbook in her name and some petty cash of about Rs 5,000. She detected the theft when the train reached Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Railway Station (formerly Mughal Sarai). Immediately upon noticing that her bag was missing, she and her husband tried to find the coach attendant. But the attendant was missing and then the husband informed the RPF escort and the TTE in the coach of the train. On reaching New Delhi railway station, an FIR (Zero FIR No. 0403 dated December 16, 2021) was registered and it was sent to the concerned Police Station GRP Kanpur Central Police Station. After the FIR was registered, the wife requested the railways many times to find out her stolen articles, but in vain. Since the items could not be found, her husband filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of the Indian Railways.The Indian Railways said that it would be wrong to claim that the lady became aware of this theft when the train reached Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay railway station, as the on-duty station master was not informed of the incident. Moreover, Railways also pointed out that according to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Jain V/s. Union of India and others, the Railways cannot be held responsible for un-booked luggage.Also read: GRP officer who was probing train gold theft arrested for alleged involvement in robberyWhy did the passengers win the case?Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner, KS Legal and Associates, said to ET Wealth Online: "The Consumer Commission held the Railways liable because the case was not simply about the theft of unbooked luggage."The consumer commission observed that the Railways' records showed that the theft of the items described by the passenger had been reported to the Railway Protection Force (RPF) during the journey. This evidence as observed by the consumer commisison directly contradicted the Railways' stand that no such information had been received. According to Chandwani, the consumer commission also took into account the fact that the passengers (complainants) informed the railway authorities at the earliest opportunity, and lodged a Zero FIR immediately after reaching their destination (New Delhi) and produced documents to establish ownership of the stolen jewellery (mangalsutra). Chandwani says: "These circumstances supported the complainants' (passengers) version of events."Chandwani says that the consumer commission also found it significant that the Railways did not respond to the specific allegation that no coach attendant was present in the reserved 3AC coach when the theft took place. Although the duty roster and other official records were in the Railways' possession, they were not produced before the consumer commission. Chandwani therefore says that the consumer commission drew an adverse inference against the Railways and held that they had failed to show that adequate security and vigilance had been maintained in the train coach.Chandwani says: "Ultimately, the Commission's finding of deficiency in service rested on the evidence of negligence, the contradictions in the Railways' defence and its failure to produce material records. It was these factors and not the fact that the luggage was unbooked—that led the Commission to direct the Railways to pay compensation."Consumer Commission orderA summary of the Consumer Commission judgement is as follows:RPF was notified during the journey about the theftAfter going through the relevant record of the case provided by the complainants as well as the opposite parties (Railways), the consumer commission said that it is very much clear from the documents of the opposite parties that the incident of theft was brought to the notice of the RPF escort during the journey. The complainants also lodged a zero FIR.The consumer commission said that the Railway's own documents annexed with the written statement of the opposite parties disclosed the name of RPF official to whom the complainants reported the theft. The consumer commission said: "It completely contradicts the written statement of the opposite parties that the station master of Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Railway Station had no information about the theft."Once railways admits that its RPF escort got info about the theft, it can't say no info was available with railway administrationThe consumer commission said that once the railway admits that its RPF escort received the complaint, it cannot simultaneously claim that the railway administration was unaware of the theft. Further, the complainants lodged a zero FIR at the destination. Also, everybody agreed that the incident occurred in a reserved 3 AC coach. Railways never denied the fact that no coach attendant was there when the theft happenedThe complainants have specifically pleaded that no coach attendant was available at the relevant time. The consumer commission said: "The opposite parties (railways) have never rebutted the absence of coach attendant and neither produced the duty roaster of the coach attendant to establish that the coach attendant was present at that time and performing his duties." The consumer commission also observed that the opposite parties withheld the best available evidence available with them giving an adverse inference. The complainants also produced a bill of the lost ornaments which is exhibited as kept in the lost hand bag. Consumer Commission finds Railway guilty of deficient serviceThe Consumer Commission said that on the basis of cumulative circumstances, namely immediate report to the RPF, contradicting stands by the Railways, absence of the coach attendant and failure to produce relevant records despite those being in the Railway's exclusive possession indicate that the opposite parties (railways) were deficient in rendering services to the complainants. The commission ordered the railways to pay Rs 70,000 to the complainants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its actual realisation and a further Rs 10,000 on account of mental harassment and agony to the complainants. This amount is to be paid within one month from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order, failing which the complainants are entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the whole payment from the date of filing of the present complaint till its actual realisation.