NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3745/2006

UNION OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.L.BHARGAWA - Opp.Party(s)

S.A.SATTAR

13 Apr 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3745 OF 2006
 
(Against the Order dated 09/11/2006 in Appeal No. 1065/2002 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. UNION OF INDIA
D.R.M. NORTHERN RAILWAY
STATE ENTRU ROAD
NEW DELHI
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. S.L.BHARGAWA
K-3. DDA FLATS PRASAD NAGAR ,
NEW DELHI
-
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :S.A.SATTAR
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 13 Apr 2011
ORDER

Respondent is not present despite service.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

          Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant along with others booked sleeper class tickets of Mussoorie Express to travel from Delhi to Haridwar on 11.6.1997 and boarded the same at 2220 hrs.  When the train reached Ghaziabad at about 2320 hrs., a big mob barged into the bogy preventing the complainant and others from making unhindered and comfortable journey.  They shouted slogans of “Jai Kisan ann data”, etc. thereby disturbing the sleep of the occupants.  No TTE or conductor was on duty in violation of the directions issued by the Ministry of Railways and the complainant and others were deprived of the comfortable, convenient and safe travel in reserved compartment.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to each of the complainants.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which the respondent filed appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and trauma suffered by the complainants besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

          Counsel for the petitioner does not contest the finding recorded by the State Commission on merits but restricts his submission only to the point that respondent could not be granted compensation of more than what he had asked for in the complaint.  In his complaint, the respondent had asked for a compensation of Rs.5,000/- only, whereas the State Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

          We agree with the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission could not award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- as the respondent himself had restricted his claim to Rs.5,000/-.

          Revision Petition is allowed in part.  Compensation awarded is reduced to Rs.5,000/- from Rs.25,000/-.  Rest of the order of the State Commission is upheld.  No order as to costs.

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

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.