UNION OF INDIA Vs. ALOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order 14. 11. 2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bihar, Patna dismissing appeal against the order dated 18. 6. 2005 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party-Railways was directed to pay amount of Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) RESPONDENT alleged that he was married in the first week of May, 1999 and for the journey from Patna to Nagpur along with his wife, he got the reservation in first class compartment of U. P. Patna Sangh Mitra Express for 23. 10. 1999. Train started from Patna at 8. 30 a. m. on 24. 10. 1999 instead of 14. 45 p. m. on 23. 10. 1999. It was further alleged that when the train reached Ara Railway Station, four/five unauthorised persons entered into the compartment and on the point of dagger and revolver snatched all the gold ornaments from his wife in addition to taking away VIP suit case which contained valuable articles. Neither Conductor nor Coach Attendant was in the compartment since the start of train from Patna. Claiming compensation the respondent filed complaint which on contest was allowed by the District Forum in the manner noticed above and appeal filed by the Railways was dismissed relying on the decision in P. A. Narayanan v. Union of India and Ors. , III (1998) SLT 16=i (1998) CLT 150 (SC)= (1998) 3 SCC 67.

(3.) DURING argument on admission, Mr. Sanjay Kumar for petitioners has tried to distinguish the decision in P. A. Narayanan's case (supra ). This decision was heavily relied upon in yet another decision in Sumati Devi M. Dhanwatay v. Union of India and Ors. , II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC)=iii (2004) SLT 227=2004 CTJ 700 (SC), by the Apex Court. Facts in Sumati Devi's case are by and large similar to the facts of present case. Considering the ratio of both the decisions, we do not find any illegality of jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.