NCDRC holds Railways liable for 2004 train robbery, orders Rs 20,000 compensation

“The Petitioners were travelling in a reserved sleeper coach and had a legitimate expectation that reasonable arrangements would be made by the Railway Administration for the safety and security of passengers. The allegation that no attendant or security escort was present during the occurrence, coupled with the fact that the robbers were allegedly able to remain in the coach for a considerable period and flee after the robbery, constitutes sufficient basis, on the balance of probabilities applicable to consumer proceedings, to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration,” the commission said on August 31.

The commission, however, found that the passengers could not establish the entire value of the cash and jewellery they claimed was looted and awarded consolidated compensation of Rs 20,000 towards loss, mental agony and litigation expenses with 6 per cent interest.

Armed robbers entered reserved coach

Singh and his daughter were travelling from Hapur to Guwahati in Sleeper Coach S-8 of the Awadh-Assam Express on August 28, 2004. The Railways argued that the robbery was an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act and that such claims should be dealt with by the Railway Claims Tribunal.

The NCDRC rejected the objection, saying the complaint was about the Railways’ failure to provide adequate safety and security in the reserved coach. It held that passengers could seek relief under consumer law as well. The commission also noted that the state commission had earlier held that the consumer forum had jurisdiction.

Security lapse amounted to deficiency

The NCDRC found that the alleged absence of an attendant or security escort, along with the robbers’ ability to remain in the coach for a considerable period and flee after the robbery, provided sufficient basis, on the balance of probabilities applicable to consumer proceedings, to hold the Railway Administration deficient in service.

The commission referred to internal railway instructions requiring safety arrangements, including the presence of TTE and Railway Protection Force personnel and fastening of reserved-coach doors between 10 pm and 6 am. Their violation, it held, resulted in deficiency in service.
Why Rs 59,725 claim was not fully accepted

Holding the Railways deficient, the commission did not accept the entire monetary claim. It pointed to discrepancies in the exact quantum of loss, the documentary evidence, the absence of recovery or evidence establishing the value of the allegedly looted articles and the petitioners’ inability to establish the full Rs 59,725 claim to the requisite degree.

The commission described the amount of Rs 20,000 as “just, reasonable and proportionate”, considering the failure to provide adequate security, the inconvenience, mental agony and hardship suffered by the passengers and uncertainty over the exact value of the allegedly lost articles. The amount includes compensation for loss, mental agony and litigation expenses.

Takeaway

Passengers travelling in reserved coaches can expect reasonable safety and security arrangements from the Railways. A failure to provide basic safeguards, such as an attendant or security escort, can amount to deficiency in service and may entitle consumers to compensation.

Do not miss out on these stories

Insurer told to pay Rs 51 lakh for Delhi restaurant gutted in 2011 fire

Rs 53 lakh luxury car has ‘faulty’ audio, owner refused refund, gets Rs 1.5 lakh payout

‘Improper’ blood storage leads to woman’s death, family gets Rs 10.25 lakh payout