<p>Mumbai: The South Mumbai District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has rejected a railway passenger's claim to compensation for theft of belongings after observing that his "lack of vigilance" might have been a contributory factor.</p><p>How can the railways be responsible if the passenger himself is not vigilant, the commission asked in its order of last week.</p><p>The complainant, a chartered accountant, had claimed his wife's purse, containing gold jewellery, a diamond ring and cash, was stolen while he and his wife were travelling on board the Ajmer-Dadar Express on September 20, 2017.</p>.Watch | Reel craze drives UP man to load Thar with mud on roof & race down the highway; cops react.<p>He had sought compensation of Rs 3.54 lakh towards stolen property, Rs 10 lakh for mental agony and Rs 40,000 as litigation costs from Western Railway claiming the public transporter's "negligence and deficiency in service led to the loss".</p><p>The railways contended the passenger did not declare valuables in the luggage, which limited its liability.</p><p>"The complainant failed to take care of the belongings and didn't keep valuables locked. The railways provided assistance, and there is no evidence of negligence or misconduct. Thus, not entitled for compensation," it said.</p>.97% of railway broad gauge network already electrified: Minister Vaishnaw.<p>The commission said perusal of evidence on record showed the complainant's wife carried valuable items in a purse and left it unattended, even if briefly, in the train compartment.</p><p>This lack of vigilance might have contributed to the theft, it said.</p><p>"The incident occurred in the morning. The train was passing through a station, and many passengers were moving around, using the washroom or standing near the door. It is possible that the theft occurred during this time, when the complainant's wife was asleep and unaware of her surroundings," the consumer commission observed.</p><p>"The complainant has not been able to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties-railways. The complainant himself was not vigilant in keeping his purse, luggage safe. How can the Railways be held responsible?" the commission questioned why rejecting the plea. </p>
<p>Mumbai: The South Mumbai District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has rejected a railway passenger's claim to compensation for theft of belongings after observing that his "lack of vigilance" might have been a contributory factor.</p><p>How can the railways be responsible if the passenger himself is not vigilant, the commission asked in its order of last week.</p><p>The complainant, a chartered accountant, had claimed his wife's purse, containing gold jewellery, a diamond ring and cash, was stolen while he and his wife were travelling on board the Ajmer-Dadar Express on September 20, 2017.</p>.Watch | Reel craze drives UP man to load Thar with mud on roof & race down the highway; cops react.<p>He had sought compensation of Rs 3.54 lakh towards stolen property, Rs 10 lakh for mental agony and Rs 40,000 as litigation costs from Western Railway claiming the public transporter's "negligence and deficiency in service led to the loss".</p><p>The railways contended the passenger did not declare valuables in the luggage, which limited its liability.</p><p>"The complainant failed to take care of the belongings and didn't keep valuables locked. The railways provided assistance, and there is no evidence of negligence or misconduct. Thus, not entitled for compensation," it said.</p>.97% of railway broad gauge network already electrified: Minister Vaishnaw.<p>The commission said perusal of evidence on record showed the complainant's wife carried valuable items in a purse and left it unattended, even if briefly, in the train compartment.</p><p>This lack of vigilance might have contributed to the theft, it said.</p><p>"The incident occurred in the morning. The train was passing through a station, and many passengers were moving around, using the washroom or standing near the door. It is possible that the theft occurred during this time, when the complainant's wife was asleep and unaware of her surroundings," the consumer commission observed.</p><p>"The complainant has not been able to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties-railways. The complainant himself was not vigilant in keeping his purse, luggage safe. How can the Railways be held responsible?" the commission questioned why rejecting the plea. </p>