STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                  REVISION NO. R/14/2017

            (Against the order dated 11-01-2017 in Complaint Case No.

                107/2014 of the District Consumer Forum, Faizabad )

1. Union of India

Through Secretary

Ministry of Railways

New Delhi

2. Northern Railway

Through General Manager

Baroda House, New Delhi

                                                                                      ...Revisionists

                                                     Vs.

          Vishal Toha

S/o Sri Toha Ahisaan Khan

R/o 204, Nirala Nagar

Pahadganj

District Faizabad

                                                                                       ...Opposite party

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER

For the Revisionist                  :    Sri Vaibhav Raj, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party            :   

Dated : 31-01-2017

                                                  JUDGMENT

       MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL)

Sri Vaibhav Raj, learned Counsel for the revisionists appeared.

Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and perused impugned order.

Vide impugned order dated 11-01-2017 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faizabad in Complaint Case No. 107/2014 Vishal Toha V/s Northern Railway, Through General Manager, Baroda House, New Delhi and another the District Consumer Forum has rejected application 8B moved by revisionists whereby revisionists/opposite parties made prayer to discharge them from the complaint and to implead Superintendent of G.R.P. Police, Moradabad as opposite party.

Perusal of complaint shows that complainant now opposite party

:2:

has filed complaint against opposite parties who are revisionists at present with allegation that he was travelling in the train of Indian Railways at Berth No.41 of Coach A1 and during course of his journey his Laptop was stolen. As such Indian Railway has committed deficiency in service.

It has been alleged in the application 8B moved by revisionists before District Consumer Forum that the Government Railway Police is responsible for providing security to the passengers as well as their goods. As such Superintendent of Police G.R.P. may be held liable for the deficiency in service as per contention of the complainant. As such he should be impleaded in the complaint and revisionists/opposite parties should be discharged. The District Consumer Forum has held in impugned order that the complainant now opposite party has filed complaint against opposite parties now revisionists and if the complainant fails to prove his case against present opposite parties the complaint shall be dismissed. The District Consumer Forum has further held that complainant cannot be ordered to implead any other  person.

The impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum cannot be said to be against law. Complainant/opposite party has filed complaint against opposite parties with allegation of deficiency in service. If he succeeds in proving charge of deficiency in service against opposite parties his complaint shall be allowed, otherwise his complaint shall be dismissed. In view of above, at this juncture, we do not find sufficient ground for interference in impugned order.

The revision is dismissed with liberty to revisionists to file their written statement before District Consumer Forum within one month from today.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.

                                                               ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                ( SMT. BAL KUMARI )

                                                                                    MEMBER

          Pnt.