Will Railway be responsible ?

(1) Personal luggage of a passenger was stolen

away during journey .

(2) Neck less of a passenger was stolen away
through window of a Railway coach during
journey .
(3) Mr. S was at NDLS station for journey, He could
not board the train due to overcrowding , His
briefcase lost at PF in crowd .
(4) A person with his family traveling by train ,
water was not available in the coach at all .

contd..
(5) A passenger after alighting from a train, while

passing over the railway foot-over-bridge (FOB)

was injured because of the collapse of FOB .
(6) While traveling in Railway ,a person sustained
injury in his right eye by a stone pelted from out
side, resulted in to the complete blindness of that
eye .
(7) A lady passenger traveled in Ist AC From Nagpur
to Mumbai. She was assaulted by mob, entered
into train thousands in number, going to
participate in a political function and her personal
belongings were also stolen away .

contd
(8) Parking at railway station , contractor charging
higher amount than fixed by the railways .
(9) Mr. D traveling from KKK to Mumbai by Gitanjali
Exp Train arrived Mumbai 3.30 hrs. late at
midnight .
(10) A Railway employee admitted her wife in
Railway Hospital . Due to negligence of doctors,
she died .
(11) A passenger fell down from a running train .

contd
(12) A person was traveling by Railway. The train was over
crowded , so he was standing near the door. Due to
sudden jerk he lost balance and hit by the home signal.Copassengers caught hold of him so he could not fall from
the train but later on succumbed to the injuries.
(13) A passenger while trying to board the train,slipped down
and sustained injury and died. His wife filed a case before
RCT for compensation for death and another case before
consumer forum for delay on the part of Railway
administration in providing medical help.

contd.
(14) A Railway passenger was not allowed to occupy his
reserved seat , by unauthorized passengers .
(15) A licensed porter ,while he was pulling a trolley, the
trolley hit an obstacle on Railway platform. On
account of the impact, porter was thrown to the track
on which goods train was passing resulting into his
death .
(16) Delayed payment of PF to a retired employee.

NATURE OF RESPONSIBILITIES
IMPOSED
(CP Act)

ADMITTED
(Rly Act)

EXEMPTED

(Sovrn. function)

Admitted Responsibility under

Railway Act-1989 as carrier.
GOODS
BOOKED

COMPLETE

PASSENGERS
UN-BOOKED

PARTIAL

BONAFIED

UN
AUTHORISED

COMPLETE

RESTRICTED

DISPUTE REDRESSAL AGENCY: RLY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

Goods & Responsibilities

(A) BOOKED:

Sec-93:General Responsibility.
Sec-99:Responsibility after termination of transit.
Exceptions:Sec-93(a)-(i)&Sec-102.

(B) Un-BOOKED :
Sec-100:Responsibility as carrier of luggage. -A railway

administration shall not be responsible for the loss,

destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any
luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and
given a receipt therefore and in the case of luggage which is
carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved
that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to
the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any
of its servants.

Passengers & Responsibilities

(A) Accident : [Section -124 ]

Where in course of working a Railway

an accident occurs :
Whether or not there has been any wrongful act ,
neglect or default on the part of Railway
administration , resulted into :

Death or Injury of any passenger ,and /or

Damage ,deterioration or destruction of goods

owned by Passenger,

Would entitled passenger to get compensation .

Passengers & Responsibilities

(B) Untoward incident:[Sec123(c)]

I) Commission of a terrorist act,

II) Making of a violent attack, commission of
robbery or dacoity ,or
Iii) Indulging in rioting, shoot- out or arson, by
any person in or on any train carrying
passengers or in a waiting hall ,cloak room or
reservation , or booking office or on platform or
any other place within the precincts of a Rly
station ; or
IV) The accidental falling of any passenger from
a train carrying passengers.

Untoward incident &

Extent of liability
When in course of working of a Railway Untoward incident occurs:
Death or Injury of any passenger ;

Would entitled passenger to get compensation , whether

or not there has been any wrongful act , neglect or default
on the part of Rly administration .

Except Death/ Injury is the result of :1) Suicide or attempted suicide 2)Self inflicted Injury 3) Own
criminal act 4) Any act committed by intoxication or
insanity 5) Any natural cause of disease ;
Passenger : Includes Railway servant on duty & Platform
ticket holder at Platform.

Enquiry by RPF under Rly passengers Untoward incidents

(Manner of Investigation)Rule-2003.

Imposed Responsibilities Under

Consumer Protection Act-1986
Under CP Act, any person who purchase the good or hire

the service is a consumer and entitled for compensation , if

good is found defective or service is found deficient.

Railway as service Provider:

Service [ Sec -2 (o ) ] :
Services means service of any description which is made
available to potential users and includes facilities in
connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport,
boarding & lodging, housing construction ,entertainment,
supply of energy etc. but does not include any service free
of charge or under contract of personal service .

DISPUTE REDRESSAL AGENCY:CONSUMER COURTS

CONSUMER- COURTS
DISTRICT LEVEL

STATE LEVEL

DISTRICT FORUM
( Up to 20 lakh )

STATE COMMISSION
(20 lakh to 1 crore)

NATIONAL LEVEL

NATIONAL COMMISSION
(Beyond 1 crore )

Total Value of Goods &

Services and Compensation
TIME : 2 Yrs.
From date of cause of action arisen

POWER OF APPEAL
NO FEE FOR CONSUMER TO APPEAL

STATE
DISTRICT 3O days
3O days NATIONAL 3O days
COMMISSION
COMMISSION
FORUM

SC

PRE - CONDITION FOR APPEAL

FOR TRADER /SERVICE PROVIDER
Rs. 25000 or 50%
of compensation
Whichever less.

Rs. 35000 or 50%

of compensation
Whichever less.

Rs. 50000 or 50%

of compensation

Whichever less.

CPAct and Hospitals

Indian Medical Association Vs V. P.Shantha
(AIR1996SC550 : AIR 1995 SCW4463)

Registration
Registration
fee
feeisisnot
not
charge
charge

Where medical services by

Doctor or Hospital
rendered free of charge

No liability
Under CP Act

Where charges are

required to be paid by
every body to Doctor or
Hospital

Full liability
Under CP Act

Where services of Doctor

or hospital are partly
free & partly with charge

Full liability
Under CP Act

EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITIES

A Government can not be made liable for any

wrong committed during discharge of its
sovereign function.
In welfare state, scope of sovereign functions is
restricted to defense of state, administration of
justice etc.
Activities such as education, commercial, social,
economic, political etc. cannot be said to be
related to Sovereign power.

RESPONSIBILITIES &MONETRY BURDEN

Railways liabilities &

Judicial Decisions .

Theft of Personal luggage

Mrs J was returning home after retirement by T/N1081 ex
Mumbai to Kollam in S3 compartment ,
She requested TTE to detrain the unauthorized passengers, but
he left the coach without taking action .
In night ,she found that her luggage and luggage of copassengers were missing and door of the coach open,
She filed a case under CP Act ,the objections of Rly was :
(a) Free luggage,
(b) Immunity U/S 100 of Rly Act, and
(c) Assessment of stolen luggage is not possible;
ORDER : Rly will be liable for deficiency in service
[GM C Rly Vs. M Josheph :2003(1)CPR 653 SCDR/Kerla ]

Theft from person

Mr A was traveling with family Mumbai to vasco

de Gama by Mahalaxmi Exp.in SL.
Miscreants snatched away golden chain of his
wife through window,
No electricity in coach ,ACP not working& No
window panes,
Objection of Rly was no liability to protect the
personal belongings,
ORDER: Compensation for Rs 32,000 for
deficiency of service.
[NCDRC Rev. No-2226-27of 2002 ]

Theft in general coach

Traveling in General - Compartment ,

Known fact that no attendant/TTE,
Baggage neither booked nor taken care
by the passenger.
ORDER :
No proof of any negligence on the part of
Railway so no liablity.
[ Smt. Savitri Awasthi Vs. GM/N Rly
2005(2) CPR 17 (NC) ]

Theft at PF
Mr. S was at NDLS station for journey,
He could not board the train due to overcrowding ,
His briefcase lost at PF 7 in crowd,
Claim for refund of ticket price, for loss & mental
agony total Rs 1,00,000 .
Objection of Rlys : Refund permissible as per
Rly Passenger (cancellation of tickets & refund )
Rules but no liability for theft & mental agony as
immunity u/s 100 Rly Act for theft of personal
luggage;
ORDER: No compensation .
[ S. Mishra Vs CRB 2004(2) CPR528Delhi ]

Violent attack & Theft in side the train

Mrs. S was traveling in Ac I by Mumbai- Howrah mail ex Nagpur
to Mumbai,
Several unauthorized persons entered into coach to cover their
journey to Mumbai for Ambedker Jayanti ,
Assaulted & theft of belongings ,
On complaint, objection of Rly was :
(a) No liability for theft of luggage U/s 100 Rly Act, and
(b) Occurrence took place all of sudden & beyond the control,
ORDER : Rly liable, occurrence of such mob violence is recurring
phenomenon every year and widely publicized so it can not be
said unforeseen. Compensation Rs-1,41,576 awarded against
9,32,256 claimed ;
{Sumati Devi Vs.UOI & ors (2004)6SCC113}.

Violent attack from out side

While traveling in Railway , son of the appellant
sustained injury in his right eye by a stone pelted from
out side, resulted in to the complete blindness of that
eye.
First claim before RCT ,filed by mother but rejected as
there was no any evidence of mob attack on Railway.It
may be a stray incident of stone pelting.
HC set aside the order of RCT by holding that single
stone throwing incident resulting into injury may come
within the preview of un towards incident.1.60 lakh
compensation awarded.
[Smt.Lekha Barua v/s UOI-AIR2008 Cal 59(DB)]
Dissented with the judgement of Mumbai HC in UOI v/s
S.S. Gaikwad- AIR2002Bomb436.

Non availability of water in coach

Water was not available at all in coach. Complainant said he
and his family suffered on that account it being the month of
May. In spite of complaints nothing was done to repair the
broken pipe.Other passengers had also complained.
Facts
alleged by the complainants were not disputed by the Railway
by giving evidence of any Railway staff except denial in its written
statement .
District Forum held in favour of the complainant and directed
Railway to pay Rs.55,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as
cost.
Railway went in appeal to the State Commission which upheld the
order of the District Forum except that the compensation was
reduced from Rs.55,000/- to Rs.10,000/
Revision filed by Railway again rejected by NCDRC.
[SE Rly V/S Y.Tiwary Rev.Petition No.1062/02]

Extra charging by
Railways contractor
Complainant parked his scooter at the cycle stand of the railway
Station at Ludhiana.
Parking fee was 50 Paise but contractor
was charging Rs-3/. At least, as many as 300 scooters were
parked /day.
No action was taken by SS and ADRM on written complaint of
Complainant.
Complainant filed case before District Forum but District Forum
rejected the case by observing thatCharging of Rs.2.50 extra than the prescribed rate is too trivial a
matter to be taken note of.
On appeal State commission, held the Railway Administration

jointly and severally liable

to pay to the complainant
Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs.
NCDRC rejected the revision petition of Railway and observed
that the District Forum rather appreciating the action of the
complainant, coming before it and taking cudgels on behalf of
general public who normally shy away, made fun of him .
NCDRC/NDLS- REV. NO. 2231 / 2000 UOI v/s R.L. Agrwal

Late running of train

Mr. D traveling from KKK to Mumbai by Gitanjali Exp,

Train arrived Mumbai 3.30 hrs. late at midnight due
engine failure en route,
Claim for : mental agony & excess expenses at
station & locating the destination ,
Objection of Rly- Timely running of train not
guaranteed,
Compensation allowed of Rs 5000 by District Forum,
On appeal State Commission set aside the order by
observing that unless there is positive dereliction
constituting negligence, Rly will not liable;
[G.M. /E RLY Vs. M/S CONSUMER GUIDENCE
SOCIETY : 2002(3) CPR 334 CALCUTTA]

Late running of train & Negligence

A was traveling by2960(Jaipur-Chennai /SF Exp),

Train arrived at Nidubrolu Stn at 4am but remained halted
here up to 9pm, due to derailment of Goods Train.
After 9 pm train diverted through another route and
thereby delayed arrival at destination by 45 hrs.
Relying on decision of NCDRC:1993CPJ-II/p54, Rly
objection was delay in departure/arrival can not be
termed as deficiency, and Delay was due to unforeseen
circumstances.
District commission: No justification with Rly for taking 19
hrs in taking decision for diverting the train while some
other trains arrived subsequent to present train diverted
within shortest period. Out of claim of Rs50,000+50,000
allowed only Rs 25,ooo+10,000.
On appeal- State commission Kerla, reduced to the said
amount Rs 11,000+350[GM SCR v/s VK
Ratheesan2008(1)CPR138].

Accidental falling &Compensation

Appellant son was traveling by Awadh Exp. With valid ticket .
The train was over crowded , so his son was standing near
the door. Due to sudden jerk his son lost balance and hit by
the home signal.Co- passengers caught hold of him so he
could not fall from the train but later on succumbed to the
injuries.
Objection from Railway was - it is not a case of accidental
falling down from train as defined in the Sec- 123(C ) of the
Railways Act as deceased was not grounded ,
Honble High Court rejected the plea by observing that too
technical interpretation will rob the beneficial nature of the
legislation. Accidental falling should be interpreted as
meaning of causing instability in a passenger due to which
he loses his balance and falls.
[AIR2007 RAJ 146- Indrajeet Singh v/s Union of India]

Reserved seat occupied by others

Four senior citizen had to travel, ex Lucknow to Haridwar by

Doon Exp. In SL class.
Not allowed to occupy their seats by unauthorized persons of
Kissan Rally ,
They requested SS and Rly Police for help but in vain,
Claim for compensation,
Objection of Rly was: Law & order Problem,
Compensation allowed Rs 525+5000+1000 by DCRF,
On appeal: NC rejected the appeal by observing that whole
episode is strange commentary on working of Rly & Rly police.
They prefer law breaker over law abider.
[CPR2002(1) p78 NC]

Double compensation
Dr.T.V. Viswanathan a Professor Of Kerla Agriculture
University was traveling by Railway. When train reached
Pudukkad railway station , he stepped out from the train
but during re boarding of train , due to unusual jerk he fell
down from the compartment resulting into death.
Her wife filed petition for compensation for untoward
incident before RCT but at the same time filed another
petition for delay in providing medical help by railway
administration.
State commission rejected the plea by observing that
Trying to board the train& falling down will also come
within the purview of un towards incident.
But double compensation barred as per sec-128 0f the
Railways Act. Being special law, provisions of Railways Act
will prevail over CP Act.
[Santha Kumary v/s UOI-2002(2)CPR252 SCDRC/Kerla.

Service rendered by Rly Hospital :

A Railway employee admitted her wife in Railway
Hospital , due to negligence of doctors, she died.
Objection Of Railway on claim was that service provided
by Railway Hospital to its employees is free service ,so
it is out side the preview of Consumer Protection Act.
Honble Supreme court rejected the plea and observed
that - Service provided by Rly. Hospital / Doctor is not
free service but it is the part of the employment where
employer (Rly) has to bear the expenses . So for
negligence of doctor , Railway will be liable.
(Laxman Thamappa Kotgiri Vs. GM /C Rly&ors.
2005 1scale 600 SC )

Falling down from platform

A licensed porter ,while he was pulling a trolley, the trolley hit
an obstacle on Rly platform at Alwaye.
On account of the impact, porter was thrown to the track on
which goods train was passing resulting into his death.
Claim for compensation ,rejected by RCT.
WP before HC - Main objection of Rly was:
- Porter was not passenger .
ORDER:
HC directed Rly to Pay compensation of Rs.4lakh;
[ Smt Philomina Vs Rly through DRM-AIR2007/210KER]

Rape by Railway- Employees &

Sovereign function

A women of Bangladesh was gang raped by Railway

employees in Yatri Niwas at Howrah Railway Station.
Calcutta-HC awarded compensation to Rs.10 lakh to
victim.
Challenge by railway before SC on ground thatRailway can not be made vicarious liable for any
offence committed by its employee due to immunity of
sovereign functions.
Plea rejected by SC by observing that- Establishing
Yatri Niwas at various Railway Stations to provide
lodging and boarding facilities to passengers on
payment of charges is a part of the commercial
activity of the Union of India and this activity cannot
be equated with the exercise of Sovereign power.
CRB V/s CHANDRIMA DAS-AIR2000SC988.

Delay in release of PF
There was delay in payment of PF amount by 14 months
by AG of Maharashtra.

District Forum directed payment of PF within 30 days

with interest @18% p a .

In appeal before State commission, relying on decision

of NDRC passed in Rev.No-961/97,State Commission
observed that AG of Maharashtra was not running any
service, which is commercial in nature within the
meaning of C P Act.

AG of Maharashtra was discharging the sovereign

function of Government of India, simply to maintain the
accounts.

Hence, order of District Forum is set aside.

[AG Maharashtra V/S P.M.INGAWALE/2008(1)CPR-p67]

Nature of
Deficiencies in services
SECURITY
RELATED

OPERATION
RELATED

GENERAL
SERVICES

SECURITY OF PASSENGERS &

PASSENGER-AREA
6906-Stations+9415M/E-TRAINS/DAY

67839-RPF

36000-GRP