LAWS(NCD)-2007-1-78

UNION OF INDIA Vs. OM PRAKASH

Decided On January 22, 2007
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
OM PRAKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 8.9.06 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur allowing appeal against the order dated 18.8.99 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 7,000 towards compensation to the respondent.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the respondent was having two confirmed berths in Dehradun Express for 28.2.98 from Bharatpur to Kota in Coach S -6, this coach was not attached on account of mechanical defect and it was announced that the passengers of Coach S -6 can travel in Coach S -3. Respondent alleged that he was not provided two berths in Coach S -3 by the conductor and for the inconvenience caused he filed a complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the petitioner. In support of averments made in complaint the respondent had filed his affidavit and that of Shiv Ram Prashar, Smt. Shanti Devi and Dev Chand Sharma. Affidavit of Shri D.R. Yadav, Station Manager was filed by way of evidence on behalf of the petitioner. To be noted that that the conductor of Coach S -3 was impleaded as opposite party No. 5 in the complaint but he did not choose to file written version or affidavit by way of evidence. Copy of the affidavit of said D.R. Yadav is at page 56. This affidavit notices that on account of mechanical defect, Coach No. S -6 was not attached and announcement was made that passengers of S -6 Coach can travel in S -3 Coach. This affidavit is conspicuously silent in regard to the conductor of Coach S -3 not having denied two berths to the respondent in S -3 Coach. In absence of affidavit by the conductor of S -3 Coach (Opposite Party No. 5) the affidavit of the respondent and three witnesses filed in support of the complaint go unrebutted about the conductor of S -3 Coach not having provided two berths in that Coach to the respondent who was admittedly having two berths in S -6 Coach. Having heard Shri Shailash Prakash Sharma for petitioner, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission awarding a consolidated compensation of Rs. 7,000 to the respondent. Revision petition is therefore dismissed. Revision dismissed.