Case nº Revision Petition No. 1149 Of 2010, (Against the Order dated 11/12/2009 in Appeal No. 48/2008 of the State Commission Rajasthan) of NCDRC Cases, May 11, 2015 (case 1. Bharat Sangh and Anr. 2. Divisional Railway Manager Vs Prahalad Khatri)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Shankar Chouhan, Advocate and For Respondents: Nemo
PresidentMr. D.K. Jain, President and Mr. Vinay Kumar, Member and Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member
Resolution DateMay 11, 2015
Issuing OrganizationNCDRC Cases


This Revision Petition, by the North Western Railways, is directed against order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur, Rajasthan (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 48 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 28.02.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jodhpur, Rajasthan (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 314 of 2006, awarding a total compensation of `19,960/- in favour of the Complainant, the Respondent herein, along with interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount, on account of the alleged delay in the arrival of Mandore Express at place of its destination nine hours behind the scheduled time of arrival.

The case of the Complainant was that he had accompanied his relatives, who had come from Pakistan and were scheduled to leave for Lahore by air on 17.10.2005, but because of the delay in the train reaching Delhi on time on the said date, they had to purchase fresh tickets and in the process they suffered undue harassment and expenses for cancellation of the tickets already purchased.

Despite service, nobody is present on behalf of the Respondent. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/Railways.

Learned Counsel has submitted that in view of Rule 115 of the Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No.25, the Railways cannot be saddled with any liability for delay either in arrival or departure of its trains at the times specified in the time table and, therefore, the lower Fora committed a material irregularity in allowing the Complaint in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT