Railways' liability under Consumer Protection to compensate passenger for stolen bag upheld by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, on Friday, dismissed an appeal filed by Indian Railways against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directing the railways to compensate a passenger for theft of goods. .A Bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud upheld the compensation of Rs. 1,33,000 awarded to the passenger whose baggage was stolen when she was on her way from Delhi to Secunderabad. .The court also expressed surprise at the fact that the Railways had filed an appeal in a case involving a paltry sum. ."(Compensation is) only 1,33,000 here. What is this?" the Bench remarked while dismissing the appeal..The respondent passenger while travelling from Delhi to Secunderabad had raised a concern that there was no chain under her seat and later claimed that one of her bags was stolen from under the seat. .The passenger alleged that Railway Protection Force did not take steps to stop entry of unauthorized person in coaches and that people without ticket were also getting inside..The Railways claimed that the passenger never informed the authorities that she was carrying valuable like Saree and Jewelry. It was also submitted that she had failed to prove that she was carrying anything valuable..Importantly, it was contended by the Railways the passenger in this case would not fall within the definition of consumer under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act since she did not avail services of Railways for the transport of the goods alleged to have been stolen. .As per Section 100 of the Railways Act 1989, railways cannot be held responsible for loss, damage or destruction of goods unless railways was booked specifically for transportation of the said goods, it was submitted. .This was turned down by the District and State forums. .The NCDRC relying on Rubi Chandra vs United Insurance had ruled that the commission can only look into whether there was a jurisdictional error leading to miscarriage of justice..It had stated that it cannot reassess and re-appreciate evidence to see who was at fault in a particular case.