Order No. 12 dt. 28/06/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was travelling from Howrah to Jaipur by train no. 12307 in coach no. S9, birth no. 9. While the train was in running condition the rain started. The complainant tried to close the metal window but could not close the same. Other passengers also tried to close the window but failed to close the said window. The complainant thereafter shut down the glass window but rainwater was entering into the compartment causing damage to the luggage of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant lodged a complaint through SMS. But the said complaint was not resolved. Still the complainant reached Jaipur. It was further alleged by the complainant that some of the passengers in the said compartment was creating disturbance to the complainant by playing music through mobile phone. The complainant tried to bring it to the notice of the TTE of the train but no action was taken. In view of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.
The o.p. contested the case by filing w/v denying all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complaint petition should be dismissed on the ground that the complainant made an untrue and incorrect statement. The o.p. stated that after the complaint lodged by the complainant regarding the problem of closing the window the said fact was checked by the o.p. and was repaired. After maintenance the window shutter near berth no. 9 of the said coach was repaired. The complainant also stated that while he was returning from Jaipur to Sealdah he was put to serious inconvenience by the fellow passengers. Since the incident took place within the jurisdiction of North-Western Railway and North-Central Railway the said fact was informed to the Chief Commercial Manager of those divisions. If the complainant would have any grievance against those divisions the complainant could have made the General Mangers of those divisions as parties to the case. The complainant is in the habit of filing cases in different Foras with expectations of getting compensation and this case is also the outcome of the said expectation for which the complainant filed this case on some false and frivolous grounds. Accordingly the o.p. prayed of dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the complainant faced any inconvenience in travelling between Howrah and Jaipur ?
- Whether on his return journey from Jaipur to Sealdah he faced inconvenience from the fellow passengers ?
- Was the o.p.s at all responsible for inconvenience faced by the complainant ?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service by the o.p.s ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and for avoidance of repetition of facts.
The complainant himself argued the case. He submitted that while he was travelling in sleeper class in coach no. S9 on 08/08/2014 it was raining and he wanted to close the metal window but due to congestion the window could not be closed and the water percolated on his seat and luggage was damaged. He further stated that while he brought to the notice of the railway officials but no action was taken. The complainant further emphasized that while he was returning from Jaipur to Kolkata some fellow passengers caused annoyance to the complainant by listening music in their mobile with high volume. The complainant brought the said fact to the notice of the railway officials but no action was taken. In view of such fact the complainant prayed for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the o.p.s because of deficiency in service.
The Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that the complainant is a veteran litigant and he is in the habit of filing cases against the railways without any cogent ground whatsoever with the expectation that his financial stringency can be met by the complainant by getting compensation from the Railways and for that purpose the complainant file cases one after another in different Foras. It has become the profession of the complainant and because of such filing of false and frivolous cases this case is also to be dismissed by awarding heavy cost upon the complainant. The Ld. Lawyer also pointed out that as per the complaint lodged by the complainant railway officials took measure and the problems were resolved but the complainant made wild allegations against the o.p.s and filed this case without having any cogent ground whatsoever. The Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s emphasized that while he was returning from Jaipur to Seladah, on the way some fellow passengers created problems which fell within the jurisdiction of North-Western Railway and North-Central Railway but they have not been made parties in this case. In view of the said fact since the complainant is a veteran litigant the claim made by the complainant should be taken into consideration with a grain of salt. On the basis of the said fact and circumstances above the o.p.s prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant was travelling from Howrah to Jaipur on 08/08/2014. The complainant has stated that on that date while the train was proceeding towards Jaipur on the way the rain started and he tried to close the metal window but the metal window was found congested and he closed the glass window. During the said transition period the water entered through the window which the complainant claimed that his luggage was damaged. But he did not disclose what was the quantum of damage sustained by him. The Railways also admitted that after getting such complain from the complainant the defect was removed. It is found from materials on record that the complainant was travelling with at least more than 70 passengers in the said compartment i.e. S9 of the said train but not a single passenger supported the case of the complainant that the luggage of the complainant was damaged. The complainant in order to make out a false case had taken such plea that his luggage was damaged. So far as the unruly behavior of the fellow passengers is concerned the incident took place within the jurisdiction of North-Western Railway and North-Central Railway but it is curious enough that complainant has not made those divisions as parties in this case. Apart from the said fact the complainant could have lodged complain against those passengers to the nearest GRPs and at least could have provided a GD no. to fortify the incident that was faced by the complainant. The complainant has manufactured the said fact to give shape to this case. The complainant being an aged person has at least filed several cases against Railways and other authorities with the expectation of getting compensation to meet his financial stringency as alleged by the Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s. In view of such background of the case and the complainant being a veteran litigant has manufactured the case and it is not possible for the o.p.s to provide security guard to each and every passenger of the train and also to remove all the minor defects as alleged by the complainant that the metal window was not functioning but the glass window was closed. In case of protecting rain, glass window is more effective than that of metal window. It is also found from the materials on record that the defect was removed by the o.p.s as soon as it was brought to the notice of the o.p.s by the complainant. Therefore we hold that the o.p.s took active part on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant. But the complainant in spite of removing the said defect filed this case on the basis of some manufactured.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit to be allowed.
Hence,
ordered,
that the case no. 595/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost.
Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
