General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur vs G.L. Gupta

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1278 of 2003 - Dr. G.L. Gupta Vs. General Manager North Western Railway & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent and other 3 Co -passenger travelled in Suriya Nagari Express from Jodhpur to Mumbai on 21.01.2008 in AC 3 tier on berth No. 7,8, 15 and 16. They were provided bed sheet, blanket, pillow and blanket cover by coach attendant which were stinking and blankets were torn which were returned to the attendant and he was asked to bring other sets. Attendant brought other sets which were worst than the former. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint and claimed compensation. OP resisted complaint and admitted journey of the complainant, but submitted that blankets and other sets provided were not dirty and stinking and further submitted that blanket cover was not provided to any passenger. Change of fresh bed roll was admitted and submitted that there was no complaint afterwards and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint against which appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and learned State Commission vide impugned order directed OP to pay Rs.1,000/ - for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/ - as litigation expenses against which this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither blanket cover was supplied, nor supplied material was stinking or in torn condition and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. Perusal of record clearly reveals that in the complaint, complainant submitted that blanket cover was provided and on exchange of previously supplied bed roll, etc. complaint was lodged in the complaint book that the material supplied second time was in worst condition than the material supplied first time. OP in reply submitted that blanket covers were not supplied to any passengers. Complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove the fact that the blanket covers were provided. Notice given by complainant to OP also does not contain this fact that blanket cover was also provided. Thus, it becomes clear that complainant has unnecessarily mentioned wrong fact in the complaint that blanket cover was also provided.

COMPLAINANT has mentioned in the complaint that in complaint book, complaint was lodged regarding second set of blanket etc., but this fact also does not find place in the notice given by the complainant to the OP. Only one feedback form has been placed on record by the complainant signed by the complainant himself in which it has been mentioned that five bed sheets were unwashed, four pillows were in bad shape and blankets were torn. It is admitted case of the parties that first set was replaced by second set. Complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove the fact that the second set supplied by OP was worst than first set or not upto the mark. Complainant has not summoned complaint book in which complainant has made complaint in writing. In the absence of complaint book and any other cogent evidence, learned State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint only on the basis of preponderance of evidence. Learned State Commission has also mentioned wrong fact in the order that feedback form bears signatures of all the passengers, whereas it bears signature of only one passenger. Learned State Commission has also mentioned in the order that discrepancies in the notice and the complaint are on account of human behaviour. This fact cannot be accepted and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint without any cogent evidence. Learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint and impugned order is liable to be set aside.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on (2006) 12 SCC 552 - AvtarSingh and Ors. Vs. GurdialSingh and Ors. in which it was held that things admitted need not be proved. This judgment does not help to the respondent as petitioner has nowhere admitted supply of stinking or torn bed rolls. Other citations submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent after arguments have also no relevance which need not be discussed. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 7.5.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 202/2011 - Dr. G.L. Gupta Vs. General Manager & Ors. is set aside and order of District Forum dated 16.8.2011 is affirmed with no order as to costs.