Thefts on trains are commonplace. The locks and chains that are sold in abundance at railway stations are an indication of that. And in the last few years, the apex consumer court has forced the railways to take responsibility for such thefts and pay the affected consumers, damages. However, its recent order draws a distinction between reserved and non-reserved compartments and says that railways? liability in respect of lost or stolen passenger baggage is restricted to reserved compartments only.

This case has its origin in the train journey that Savitri Awasthi undertook in December 1994. She got on to Neelachal Express at Kharagpur and when she reached New Delhi station the next day, she found her briefcase missing. She lodged a complaint with the railway police and the railway authorities, but to no avail. Eventually, Awasthi decided to get the help of the consumer court.

In the case of M.Kanthimathi vs The Government of India, Ministry of Railways, for example, where some miscreants entered the reserved compartment in which Kanthimathi and her husband were travelling and snatched her gold chain, (RP No 1158 of 2001), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission asked the railways to make good the loss of the gold chain, besides paying her Rs 10,000 for the mental agony and hardship suffered by her. Here, the Commission had held the railways guilty of negligence on two counts: one, in allowing unauthorised passengers into a reserved compartment, and two, in not providing the required assistance to the passengers.

Again in the case of General Manager, Northern Railways vs Amarnath Agrawal (RP No 2326 of 2002), the complainant and his wife were travelling from Mumbai to Vasco Da Gama by Mahalakshmi Express. There was no electricity on the train, the windows had no glass panes and unauthorised persons were allowed into reserved compartments. At about 3 am, the Agrawal?s wife?s gold chain was snatched. Worse, their attempts at stopping the train failed as the alarm chain was not working. Here too, the National Commission had held the railways guilty of negligent service and awarded the passengers compensation.

However, the Commission drew a distinction between these cases and the present one (Savitri Awasthi). In this case, the passenger was travelling in an unreserved compartment that had no coach attendant. ?In a case like this, either the baggage should have been booked or taken care of by the passenger herself?, the Commission said and held that there was no negligence on the part of the railways here.