(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 2133/2007 Union of India, Northern Railway Through its DRM, Railway Station, New Delhi through Station Master, Panipat Railway Station, Panipat v. Pawan Kumar Mudgil & Ors. by which, appeal was allowed and complaint was dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainants/petitioners booked tickets for railway journey from Panipat to Jammu and back. The date of journey was 25.4.2006 by train No. 2471 (Swaraj Express). The arrival of train at Railway Station, Panipat was 6.12 A.M. and departure was at 6.15 A.M. On 25.4.2006, the complainants verified from internet about the status of train for which they had got booked their tickets, wherein the arrival of train was shown at correct time. The complainants reached at Railway Station, Panipat at 5.30 A.M. and came to know from the Enquiry Board that the train was coming 45 minutes late from the arrival time. However, the train did not come. Then on enquiry the complainant came to know from the Station Master that the training was coming 1.15 Hrs. late at platform No. 3. The complainants were waiting for train at platform No. 3, but to their utter surprise the train came at platform No. 1 for which no announcement was made by the Railway Authorities at the station. Then, the complainants ran towards the platform No. 1 and as the stay of the train at Railway Station was only for three minutes, therefore, in a hasty manner the minor children could be pushed into coach No. S-6 and all the major passengers boarded in a general coach. It was further stated that in this process the complainants lost two bags containing Rs.11,000/- in cash, jewellery of Rs.20,000/-, clothes valuing Rs.10,000/- and food items. The complainant Pawan Kumar could meet the minor children at Railway Station, Ambala Cantt and till that time the minor children were in a very perplexed condition. However, in the way from Panipat to Ambala Cantt., biscuits and water etc. were provided to the minor children by the Train Ticket Examiner. The complainant wanted to make a complaint in the complaint register with the Guard of the train but the Guard refused to give said register to the complainant. However, some other officials of the Railway Department gave complaint register to the complainant wherein the complainant made complaint at page 23 and 24 dated 25.4.2006. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint before the District Forum was not maintainable and the allegations leveled by the complainants could be proved by way of leading evidence of voluminous nature before the Civil Court. It was stated that the train No. 2471 was manned by Shri Kuldeep, Guard and not by Raj Kumar on 25.4.2006, as alleged by the complainant. Similarly, the coach No. S-5 and S-6 of the train were manned by Mahabir Singh, head TTE and not by Shri I.B. Tiwari, as stated by the complainants in their complaint. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed. District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 32,000/- towards loss of baggage and Rs.20,000/- to each of the petitioners for mental harassment. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and complaint was dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.