We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
"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.