Mumbai: Consumer Commission dismisses jewelry theft claim against Western Railway | Representative Photo
Mumbai: The South Mumbai District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has rejected a claim filed by a consumer, Lokesh Jain, holding the Western Railway liable for the theft of his wife’s jewelry during a train journey.
The Commission ruled that the complainant was responsible for safeguarding personal belongings while traveling and that the theft could not be attributed to negligence on the part of the railways.
The Commission has upheld the argument’s presented by the Western railway which said that the complainant did not declare valuables in their luggage, thereby limiting the railway’s liability.
“The complainant failed to take adequate precautions, such as keeping valuables locked, thus there is no evidence of negligence or misconduct by the railway. In such circumstances, when the complainant was not vigilant in securing their purse or luggage, how can the railways be held responsible?” the railways had questioned Jain.
Lokesh Jain, a Mira Road resident, along with his wife, was traveling from Ajmer to Mumbai on September 20, 2017, aboard the Ajmer-Dadar Express. They were booked in the air-conditioned compartment.
According to the complaint, around 5:30 AM, after the train had crossed Ahmedabad, Jain’s wife went to the restroom by taking the bag along with her to the restroom. Upon her return, she went back to sleep, only to discover later that her bag, containing valuables, was missing. Alarmed, Jain searched for the Coach Attendant, Train Ticket Examiner (TTE), and Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel, but they were unavailable.
Jain pulled the emergency chain and reported the incident to the train’s guard. At Nadiad Station, the couple met with RPF officers, reviewed CCTV footage, and filed a “Zero” FIR at Anand Police Station. Jain alleged that the absence of railway staff in the coach created an environment where the theft could occur and demanded compensation for the stolen valuables.
The Western Railway, in its response, argued that the complainants had failed to take necessary precautions, such as locking their valuables. Rather after knowing about the incident, the railway provided assistance promptly, including facilitating the filing of an FIR and hence there appears no evidence of negligence or misconduct by railway personnel.
The commission after hearing the evidence dismissed the complaint, holding the complainants responsible for the theft due to their lack of vigilance. It noted:
• The complainant’s wife left valuable items in an unattended purse in a public place, contributing to the theft.
• The incident occurred during early morning hours, around 5:00–5:30 AM, when the train was passing through a station with passenger movement in the compartment.
• This movement likely created an opportunity for the theft, which could not be ruled out.
• The complainants failed to establish any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the railway.
