NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2552/2010

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALACHANDRA G. MANNA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MS. REKHA AGGARWAL

02 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2552 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 24/02/2010 in Appeal No. 476/2007 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Through Ministry of RailwaysNew DelhiDelhi2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGERWestern RailwayVadodaraGujarat3. CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICERWestern RailwayVadodaraGujarat ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. BALACHANDRA G. MANNA & ANR.24 B, Srinagar Society, Mandap RoadDahodGujarat2. POLICE SUB-INSPERTORVadodara Railway Police StationVadodaraGujarat ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MS. REKHA AGGARWAL
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 02 Aug 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.

Heard counsel for the petitioner. There is a delay of 36 days in filing the revision, which we are inclined to condone. On substantive orders relating to compensation, costs and other reliefs granted, there are concurrent findings of fora below. The State Commission has, however, set aside the additional directions given to Supdt. of Police and also for departmental inquiry. The bag of the complainant containing valuables which had been locked by him to the bench in the waiting room was stolen in the presence of two of the employees of the Railways and the same could not be traced on account of which, the complainant had suffered loss for which he has been compensated by two fora below. In our opinion, the Railway authorities are responsible for the missing of the bag kept duly locked with the bench in the waiting room and more particularly so when two of the employees of the Railways were there in the waiting room. Accordingly, we do not find that any case has been made for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders of the fora below. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER