ORDER (ORAL) This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan dated 02.02.2017 vide which Appeal No. 275/2013 filed by the petitioners against the respondent / complainant was dismissed. 2. Briefly put, the case of the respondent complainant is that on the night intervening 26th & 27th June, 2012, he was travelling from Chennai to Hazrat Nizamuddin ( Delhi) by Duronto Express in reserved sleeper coach no.S-3. The complainant was sitting at the window seat. According to the complainant at around 1.10 a.m to 1.15 a.m., the train slowed down at the outer signal of Etarsi Railway Station. There was some commotion and suddenly some unknown person snatched the gold chain, weighing one tola, from his neck through the window. Immediately after the incident, the complainant alongwith some passengers tried to contact the coach conductor who was found sleeping in the AC coach. The coach conductor and the TTE were asked to call the police at the spot. No police man was available in the train. When the train reached Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, the complainant immediately went to the Police Station and lodged FIR. According to the complainant, the railway authorities were responsible for the safety of his life and property in which they were found lacking. The complainant thus raised the consumer dispute by approaching the District Forum. 3. The OP on being served with the notice of the complaint filed written statement denying the allegations and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay to the respondent / complainant Rs.30,000/- for financial loss on account of theft of chain. The District Forum, further awarded compensation of Rs.3000/- to the complainant for mental and physical harassment and Rs.3000/- against litigation cost. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission Rajasthan vide impugned order confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. This has led to the filing of the revision petition by the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the respondent at the outset has submitted that entire awarded amount has already been received by the complainant. Therefore, the revision petition is infructuous. I do not find merit in the above contention because the release of decretal amount to the respondent / complainant has no bearing on the issue raised by the petitioner / opposite party in the revision petition. 7. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that both the Fora below has committed a grave error in ignoring the fact that undisputedly the chain was snatched from the neck of the respondent / complainant by some unknown person from outside the compartment through the window. Therefore, the petitioners Railways cannot be held responsible for the same. 8. Counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. 9. On careful consideration of record, it is clear that the theft of chain was undisputedly committed by a person who was outside the compartment and not inside the same. As the miscreant had snatched the chain through the window, the Railways cannot be held responsible for not ensuring the safety of the passengers inside the coach. Both the Fora below have failed to appreciate this aspect and wrongly held the petitioners guilty of deficiency in service in not preventing the theft. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained. 10. I accordingly allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint. 11. As the said amount has already been paid to the complainant, taking note of the fact that amount involved is meager, it is expected that petitioners Railway shall not initiate proceedings for restitution of that amount. Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. | 
