Lost valuables on a train? This Railways ruling could help you claim compensation too
The case involved a passenger travelling with his wife and child in a 3AC coach when the woman’s handbag, containing cash, jewellery and documents, went missing from a reserved Rajdhani Express coach during the journey.
- Aug 4, 2026,
- Updated Aug 4, 2026 10:16 AM IST
A consumer commission in Pathankot has held Northern Railways liable for deficiency in service after a passenger’s handbag was stolen from a reserved 3AC coach on Rajdhani Express train No. 12423. The commission ordered the railways to pay compensation after finding negligence on the part of railway staff and inconsistencies in the defence put forward by the authorities.
The case arose from a journey on December 14, 2021, when a woman travelling with her husband and child in the 3AC coach discovered that her handbag had gone missing while the train was at Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Railway Station, formerly Mughal Sarai. The bag contained Rs 5,000 in cash, a mangalsutra weighing about 15 grams, and an SBI passbook.
Incident reported during journey
According to the complainant, the theft was noticed immediately, following which he and his wife searched for the coach attendant. However, the attendant was missing. The husband then reported the matter to the RPF escort and the TTE on the train.
A zero FIR was later registered at New Delhi railway station on December 16, 2021, and forwarded to GRP Kanpur Central. Despite repeated requests after the FIR, the stolen articles were not recovered.
Since the items could not be found, her husband filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Railways. The railways argued that “the station master at Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Railway Station had not been informed about the theft and that”, under existing legal principles, Indian Railways cannot be held responsible for the loss of unbooked luggage. They relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vijay Kumar Jain V/s Union of India.
Commission rejects railway defence
The commission, however, found that the railways’ own records showed the theft had been reported to the RPF escort during the journey. This evidence, as observed by the consumer commission, directly contradicted the Railways' stand that no such information had been received.
Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner at KS Legal and Associates, told ET Wealth Online that the case was not merely about unbooked luggage. “The Consumer Commission held the Railways liable because the case was not simply about the theft of unbooked luggage.”
According to Chandwani, the commission also noted that the complainants had informed railway authorities at the earliest opportunity and had filed the Zero FIR soon after reaching their destination. It further observed that the complainants had produced documents supporting ownership of the stolen mangalsutra.
No coach attendant, no records
A crucial factor in the ruling was the allegation that no coach attendant was present when the theft occurred. The commission said the railways never effectively denied that claim and failed to produce the duty roster or other official records to prove the attendant was on duty.
“The opposite parties have never rebutted the absence of a coach attendant nor produced the duty roster 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. Chandwani therefore says that the commission drew an adverse inference from this omission and held that the railways failed to show adequate security and vigilance in the 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."
Compensation awarded
Finding the railways guilty of deficient service, the commission ordered Northern Railways to pay Rs 70,000 as compensation along with 6% annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation. It also awarded Rs 10,000 for mental harassment and agony.
If the amount is not paid within one month of receiving the certified copy of the order, interest will rise to 12% per annum on the entire amount.
A consumer commission in Pathankot has held Northern Railways liable for deficiency in service after a passenger’s handbag was stolen from a reserved 3AC coach on Rajdhani Express train No. 12423. The commission ordered the railways to pay compensation after finding negligence on the part of railway staff and inconsistencies in the defence put forward by the authorities.
The case arose from a journey on December 14, 2021, when a woman travelling with her husband and child in the 3AC coach discovered that her handbag had gone missing while the train was at Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Railway Station, formerly Mughal Sarai. The bag contained Rs 5,000 in cash, a mangalsutra weighing about 15 grams, and an SBI passbook.
Incident reported during journey
According to the complainant, the theft was noticed immediately, following which he and his wife searched for the coach attendant. However, the attendant was missing. The husband then reported the matter to the RPF escort and the TTE on the train.
A zero FIR was later registered at New Delhi railway station on December 16, 2021, and forwarded to GRP Kanpur Central. Despite repeated requests after the FIR, the stolen articles were not recovered.
Since the items could not be found, her husband filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Railways. The railways argued that “the station master at Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Railway Station had not been informed about the theft and that”, under existing legal principles, Indian Railways cannot be held responsible for the loss of unbooked luggage. They relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vijay Kumar Jain V/s Union of India.
Commission rejects railway defence
The commission, however, found that the railways’ own records showed the theft had been reported to the RPF escort during the journey. This evidence, as observed by the consumer commission, directly contradicted the Railways' stand that no such information had been received.
Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner at KS Legal and Associates, told ET Wealth Online that the case was not merely about unbooked luggage. “The Consumer Commission held the Railways liable because the case was not simply about the theft of unbooked luggage.”
According to Chandwani, the commission also noted that the complainants had informed railway authorities at the earliest opportunity and had filed the Zero FIR soon after reaching their destination. It further observed that the complainants had produced documents supporting ownership of the stolen mangalsutra.
No coach attendant, no records
A crucial factor in the ruling was the allegation that no coach attendant was present when the theft occurred. The commission said the railways never effectively denied that claim and failed to produce the duty roster or other official records to prove the attendant was on duty.
“The opposite parties have never rebutted the absence of a coach attendant nor produced the duty roster 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. Chandwani therefore says that the commission drew an adverse inference from this omission and held that the railways failed to show adequate security and vigilance in the 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."
Compensation awarded
Finding the railways guilty of deficient service, the commission ordered Northern Railways to pay Rs 70,000 as compensation along with 6% annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation. It also awarded Rs 10,000 for mental harassment and agony.
If the amount is not paid within one month of receiving the certified copy of the order, interest will rise to 12% per annum on the entire amount.