Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

RAILWAYS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSENGER'S STOLEN CASH: SUPREME COURT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On June 15, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that the Railways cannot be held responsible for the theft of a passenger's belongings. The judgment was delivered in the case of Station Superintendent & Anr. v. Surender Bhola (Civil Appeal No. 7116/2017). The Court stated, "We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way a deficiency in service by the Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held responsible."

Surender Bhola had raised a claim before the District Consumer Forum, seeking reimbursement of Rs. 1 lakh in cash that was stolen while he was travelling in a train. Bhola alleged that the cash, which was carried in a belt tied around his waist, was stolen, and therefore, the Railways should compensate him for the loss. The District Consumer Forum had awarded Rs. 1 lakh in favor of Bhola, a decision upheld by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts' decisions and overturned them, highlighting the passenger's responsibility to safeguard personal belongings. "If the passenger is unable to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held responsible," the Court held. It further stated that the theft could not be considered a deficiency in service by the Railways.

The judgment, delivered by a Vacation Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, emphasized that the Railways cannot be held liable for the loss suffered by a passenger due to the passenger's own negligence or failure to protect their belongings.

The ruling clarifies the position of the Railways regarding the liability for theft of passenger belongings and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. Passengers will now bear the responsibility of ensuring the safety of their personal belongings while traveling on trains.

Date of Judgment: June 15, 2023

STATION SUPERINTENDENT  & ANR.  vs SURENDER BHOLA     

Latest Legal News