Railway passengers looted at gunpoint for 75 minutes on train, TTE and coach attendant were missing; NCDRC orders Rs 20,000 compensation

When people book train seats through the reservation system, the least they can expect is a safe and comfortable journey. Unfortunately, Mr Singh from Bareilly had a harrowing experience of train robbery while travelling with his daughter in a reserved coach of an express train.

The express train robbery as it happened

Mr Singh was on train No. 5610, Awadh-Assam Express, travelling with his daughter from Hapur to Guwahati in 2004. The reservation was made on August 26, 2004, for S8 coach with a PNR number of 240-5110502.

On the night of August 28, 2004, between 3:00 a.m. and 4:15 a.m., while the train was between Barpeta and Rangiya stations in Assam, six to seven armed robbers reportedly entered sleeper coach no. S-8.


The robbers began terrorising the passengers at gunpoint, looting cash, jewellery and other valuable articles from several passengers for about 1 hour and 15 minutes. Just before Rangiya station, the robbers pulled the emergency chain to stop the train and escaped with the looted articles.

From Mr Singh, they took some cash, a Titan wristwatch and jewellery. Singh said that he was wearing a gold chain weighing 30 grams and three gold rings weighing 15 grams. His daughter had gold earnings weighing 8 grams and four gold bangles weighing 30 grams. Singh said the total value of the looted items was Rs 59, 725, based on 2004 prices.

Singh pointed out that during the robbery, all the passengers were asleep and there was no attendant or security personnel/train escort in the coach. Around 4.15 a.m., when the robbers got off the train and the train reached Rangiya station, Singh along with other affected passengers reported the robbery to the Rangiya GRPS/Assam GRP and the Station Superintendent.

Following the police’s instructions, the details of the articles allegedly looted from Singh and the other passengers were separately recorded and the incident was registered as Case No. 28/2004 under Section 395 of the IPC. However, Singh was not happy with the investigation so he filed a consumer complaint on March 10, 2005. He kept on fighting in varuous consumer commissions and ultimately on August 31, 2026 won the case in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi.

President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya of NCDRC heard this case.

If you are interested to know more about the train robbers, the police apprehended a few individuals and claimed they were the robbers, the accused were acquitted in the criminal case due to insufficient evidence proving their guilt. However, Indian Railways acknowledged that a robbery did occur on the train; it was just that the individuals arrested could not be definitely linked to the crime.

Advocate Madhurendra Kumar represented Singh.

Also read: Mangalsutra, cash stolen on Rajdhani Express: Consumer Commission orders Railways to pay Rs 80,000; here's why

Why did Singh win Rs 20,000 compensation in NCDRC?

Abhishek Bagga, Associate Partner at Kind Stubb & Kasiva, said to ET Wealth Online: The passenger who filed this case (Singh and his family) were awarded Rs 20,000 after the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) found the Railway Administration deficient in service for failing to provide reasonable safety and security to passengers travelling in a reserved coach.

The NCDRC noted that no TTE or RPF/security escort was present when six to seven armed robbers entered the coach and that the coach doors were not fastened during night hours (10 PM to 6 AM), contrary to the Railway Administration’s internal instructions. These lapses, coupled with the robbers remaining in the coach for a considerable period, were sufficient to establish deficiency in service on a preponderance of probabilities.

However, Bagga says that the Hon’ble NCDRC did not uphold the award passed by the District Consumer Commission of Rs 65,000, as the petitioners could not conclusively establish the quantum of loss claimed. In view of the evidentiary discrepancies, while recognising the likelihood of some loss, the Hon’ble NCDRC awarded Rs 20,000 as consolidated compensation towards loss, mental agony and litigation expenses.

NCDRC discussion

Accused robbers were acquitted but Railways acknowledged robbery

NCDRC observed that even though the criminal proceedings have failed to prove that the accused persons caught by police were indeed the train robbers, the Railway authorities themselves acknowledged that a robbery had taken place on the train.

NCDRC said that the fact that the incident was reported to the Railway Police, that a criminal case under Section 395 IPC was registered, and that the Railway authorities themselves acknowledged the occurrence of robbery, lends sufficient support to Singh’s case that they on preponderance of probability, he may have suffered some reasonable loss due to robbery during the journey when the safety and security of the life and property through presence of TTE and the Railway Protection Force guards and fastening of doors of reserved coaches between 10 p.m and 6 a.m, as mandated by the Railway’s internal circular, stood violated resulting in deficiency in service.

NCDRC said: “The petitioners (Singh and his daughter) were travelling in a reserved sleeper coach and had a legitimate expectation that reasonable arrangements would be made by the Railway Administration for the safety and security of passengers.”

Deficiency in service

NCDRC said that the allegation that no attendant or security escort was present during the occurrence, coupled with the fact that the robbers were allegedly able to remain in the coach for a considerable period and flee after the robbery, constitutes sufficient basis to say that there was a deficiency in service on the part of Railways, based on the balance of probabilities in consumer cases.

Singh’s claim of stolen items could not be proved

Even though Singh claimed that the value of items looted were Rs 59,725, he could not establish the full extent of the value via receipts, bills and other evidence.

Thus NCDRC taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the failure of the Railway Administration to provide adequate security in the reserved coach and the inconvenience, mental agony and hardship suffered, as well as the uncertainty regarding the exact value of the articles allegedly lost, ordered a consolidated compensation of Rs 20,000.

NCDRC said that this Rs 20,000 is to be treated as inclusive of compensation towards the loss suffered, mental agony and litigation expenses, so as to avoid duplication of relief.

The Rs 20,000 compensation has to be paid within two months from the date of this order, failing which Railways will need to pay 6% interest from the expiry of the aforesaid period until payment.