HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 21765 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition inter-alias with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 195 of 2016 (Union of India & another vs. Vijay Kumar Malviya) as well as impugned appellate order dated 01.01.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow in Appeal No. 1954 of 2011 and impugned order dated 09.09.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Forum in Case No. 220 of 2008 (Vijay Kumar Malviya vs. Union of India and another). 2. The complainant / Respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Allahabad being Case No. 220 of 2008 (Vijay Kumar Malviya vs. Union of India and another) for the payment of damages from the opposite parties in the aforesaid complaint namely General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad as well as Union of India through D.R.M. North Central Railway, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad causing financial loss besides mental agony/ defamed in the society / loss of family position due to the said activities of the opposite parties in the society specially at Satna. 3. The aforesaid application was allowed by the District Consumer Forum vide its judgment and order dated 09.09.2011. By the aforesaid judgment, a direction was given to the opposite parties in the aforesaid case/the present petitioners to make the payment of Rs.25,000/- as damages to the applicant along-with a sum of Rs.2,000/- as legal expenses. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shashi Prakash Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : Union Of India And Another .....Petitioner(s) Vijay Kumar Malviya .....Respondent(s) 4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, Appeal No. 1954 of 2011 was filed by the petitioners before the State Consumer Redressal Forum, Lucknow. The said appeal was partly allowed and modified the order dated 09.09.2011 passed by the District Forum at Allahabad that Rs.10,000/- be paid as compensation in place of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation instead of Rs.2000/- within two months. 5. Not satisfied with the same, the petitioners approached the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi by filing Revision petition No. 195 of 2016. The said Revision petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10.05.2024. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 6. It is argued that vulnerable findings were recorded by all the consumer forum against the petitioner. He placed reliance upon paragraph-17 of the writ petition that Consumer Forums failed to appreciate that Indian Rail Conference Coaching Vol 26 Part 1 Rule 115 clearly mentions that Railway is neither liable for running the train late or goods nor reaching in time. It is further stated in paragraph-17 that in the present case, the train was running late due to fog and poor visibility keeping the public safety in mind. Hence, there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of Railways and therefore the respondent is not entitled for any compensation or damages. 7. It is argued that though the aforesaid grounds were duly taken before the courts below but the same was not taken into consideration. 8. From perusal of the record it transpires that complainant is running from pillar to post from more than 17 years. Complainant filed his claim before the Chief Consumer Forum, Allahabad in the year 2008 in which an order was passed in his favour on 09.09.2011. Union of India preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Forum in the year 2011 which was partly allowed on 01.01.2015. By the aforesaid order, order passed by the District Consumer Forum dated 09.09.2011 was modified and the complainant was directed to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation in place of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation in place of Rs. 2,000/- within a period of two months from the date of decision. WRIC No. 21765 of 2025 2 9. Since the Union of India has preferred the present petition for a very meager amount and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 8 SCC 470 and Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited Vs. Jagdish Lal reported in (2014) 3 SCC 156, the Court directed to sought Instructions vide order dated 17.07.2025. 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a Banker Cheque of Rs.11,000/ was placed before this Court by Sri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner/Union of India in the name of complainant/respondent namely Vijay Kumar Malviya son of Late Pt.Naval Kishore, Resident of 12-A/8, Meerapur Prayagraj. 11. After going through the same, the aforesaid Cheque has been handed over to Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional Advocate General with the direction to handover the aforesaid cheque to respondent/Vijay Kumar Malviya through his office within one week. 12. Since this order has been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances, the same would not be treated as precedent for future cases. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. September 18, 2025 saqlain WRIC No. 21765 of 2025 3 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad