Background- The SC in the case of Station Superintendent and Anr. v. Surinder Bhola, while dismissing the compensation confirmed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Tribunal (NCDRT) for a man who claims with evidence to have lost Rs. 1,00,000 kept in a belt around his waist while traveling in a train, held the following:-
"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."
While I understand the first part probably, what does the second part signify?! The money was stolen, and the court admits it to be "Theft", a criminal offence under the IPC. The court has literally set a national precedent with this one line of ambiguous reasoning. So it is the duty of a person to protect their belongings, when a thief committed theft on him?
Pertinent- the claimant TIED a BELT which held the money. Why is the victim being burdened here?
Also, will this set a precedent in all theft cases from government/ otherwise premises, saying that it was the victim' burden to secure their belongings.
(This wont affect criminal cases, yes, cuz the judgement was in the consumer cases realm, but such a precedent could lead to an interpretation otherwise)
It cannot! The question is whether Railways has a liability to compensate the victim here and not the thief. The liability of the thief will not get affected by this judgment.
This case is similar to this situation:
U board a bus and then someone steals your wallet. U go to the consumer fora asking for compensation from the owner of the bus.
I support this judgement otherwise this could have acted as a precedent and the owner of any kind of public transport, auto rickshaw, busses, taxis etc could have been asked to pay compensation for any kind of theft or losses that occur.
"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."
While I understand the first part probably, what does the second part signify?! The money was stolen, and the court admits it to be "Theft", a criminal offence under the IPC. The court has literally set a national precedent with this one line of ambiguous reasoning. So it is the duty of a person to protect their belongings, when a thief committed theft on him?
Pertinent- the claimant TIED a BELT which held the money. Why is the victim being burdened here?
Also, will this set a precedent in all theft cases from government/ otherwise premises, saying that it was the victim' burden to secure their belongings.
(This wont affect criminal cases, yes, cuz the judgement was in the consumer cases realm, but such a precedent could lead to an interpretation otherwise)
Thoughts?
This case is similar to this situation:
U board a bus and then someone steals your wallet. U go to the consumer fora asking for compensation from the owner of the bus.
I support this judgement otherwise this could have acted as a precedent and the owner of any kind of public transport, auto rickshaw, busses, taxis etc could have been asked to pay compensation for any kind of theft or losses that occur.