NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3542/2006

MAHAPRABANDHAK UTTAR RAILWAY AND ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AYUBULLAH KHAN AND ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJESHWAR SINGH

15 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3542 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 09/04/2006 in Appeal No. 914/2001 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. MAHAPRABANDHAK UTTAR RAILWAY AND ORS.MEHAPRAB ANDHAK UTTAR RAILWAY LUCKNOW U,P ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. AYUBULLAH KHAN AND ORS.R/O. MOHALLA KHAIRABAD PARGAN A MIRANPUR TEHSIL SADAR DISTT SULTANAPUR AND OTHERS ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :Ms.Rekha Aggarwal, Advocate for MR. RAJESHWAR SINGH, Advocate
For the Respondent :MR. SIKANEER ALI & MR. AYUBULLAH KHAN

Dated : 15 Sep 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          Respondent/complainant filed the complaint with the allegation that he, after purchasing tickets and paying the reservation charges, got a berth reserved for 7.6.1994 in Kushinagar Express train for the journey to Mumbai.  The train was late.  When the train arrived at Lucknow, the complainant and his family members went and occupied the seats allotted to them but the railway staff and other persons got them vacated.  Petitioner approached the conductor but he did not help.  Respondent felt harassed and filed the complaint.

 

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation along with costs of Rs.500/- as costs.  Petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, after referring to the findings recorded by the District Forum, dismissed the appeal by simply observing that there is no error in the order passed by the District Forum. 

 

State Commission is the court of first appeal.  It is the final court of fact and has to record its reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at.  We are not satisfied with the order of the State Commission and accordingly set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the State Commission to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 5.10.2010.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................VINEETA RAIMEMBER