MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
ORDER
12.08.2024
1. A complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that complainant accompanied by her daughter namely Ms. Neha Vats boarded the train from Raj Anand Gaon, Chhatisgarh in Chhatisgarh Express for destination at New Delhi on 03.11.2017 in Coach No. B2. It is alleged by the complainant that in the aforesaid coach there were lot of garbage and cockroaches and it became difficult to travel. The complainant rang on the telephone no. provided in the coach of the cleaning staff and after receiving the intimation the cleaning staff came and cleaned the coach. She further alleged that she also lodged the complaint to the cleaning staff in respect to the cockroaches in the coach, and on her enquiry the staff submitted that in the coach there is not only the cockroaches but lot of rats also used to travel in the train.
2. It is further alleged by the complainant that she slept after taking the dinner and in the morning her daughter get up early to study as she has to appear in the NET exam on 5th Novermber, as she pulled her suitcase for getting the notes and books , she found that the clothes were out of the suitcase into torn pieces due to nasty bites by rats, her notes as well as books along with the valuables were also torn into pieces by rats. The complainant lodged the complaint to the railway authority in respect to the same on the next station. One TTE namely Sh. B.K. Shrivastava met her to whom she narrated the entire incident and the said TTE shifted the complainant to A1 coach. It is further alleged by the complainant that due to cockroaches and rats she suffered mental agony as well as physical pain as she had to carry the damages unlock suitcase from station to her home. Being aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant approached this Commission for redressal of her grievance.
3. Notice of the complaint was sent to all the OPs. Joint written statement filed on behalf of all the OPs. OP has taken the preliminary objection in respect to the maintainability of the present complaint case. Beside this it is further stated that the allegation made by the complainant are false, frivolous and baseless and the present complaint has been filed with malafide intention to abstract the money. It is further stated that no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to substantiate the averments made in the complaint. It is further prayed that the present complaint be dismissed, in the interest of justice.
4. Rejoinder to the WS of OP filed wherein the contents of the complaint are denied. Complainant filed her evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.
5. Sh. Pulkeet Singhal Sr. Div. Commercial Manager, filed his evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP.
6. Complainant has placed on record the copy of ticket, copy of complaint lodged with OPs.
7. Written arguments filed by both the parties.
8. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by complainant. Despite ample opportunity no one came forward to address the arguments on behalf of OP. We have perused the record.
9. OP has strongly challenged the issue of territorial jurisdiction, hence, needs to be decided first.
10. Before adverting to the disposal of the present complaint case let us peruse the relevant perusal of CP Act 1986 which are reproduced as under:-
Section 11 Jurisdiction of the District Forum
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed 1[does not exceed rupees five lakhs].
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or 1[carries on business, or has a branch office or] personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or 1[carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain: PROVIDED that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or 1[carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
11. Admittedly, in the present complaint case the complainant board the train from Raj Anand Gaon, Chhatisgarh and the last destination was New Delhi. She lodged the complaint in respect to the incident in question with DRM (Bilaspur), DRM (Nagpur), DRM (Nagpur). It is further admitted by the parties that the incident pertains prior to Jhansi situated in Madhya Pradesh.
12. Perusal of the record shows that the addresses of the OPs mentioned in the array of parties are of Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-1, Railway colony, Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh, Mohan Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra, Shri Nagar, Raipur, Chhatisgarh all the four addresses of OPs does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission. The complainant lodged the claim with DRM (Bilaspur), DRM (Nagpur), DRM (Nagpur) which also does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission. As admitted by the parties that the incident pertains prior to Jhansi situated in Madhya Pradesh, hence, no cause of action, if any, arose within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint case.
13. On merit also we have gone through the record and found that besides bare versions nothing has been placed on record by the complainant to substantiate the averments made in the complaint, hence are of the considered view that the present complaint have no merit due to lack of documentary evidence, hence, rejected on this count also.
14. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable before this commission due to lack of territorial jurisdiction as well as on merit complainant failed to prove the case of deficiency of service on the part of OPs, hence, dismissed.
File be consigned to record room.
15. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on.
Announced in open Commission on 12.08.2024.
(SANJAY KUMAR) (NIPUR CHANDNA) (RAJESH)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
