Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                               President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

                    (3)      Anil Kumar Singh

                              Member

Date of Order : 27.07.2018

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as Compensation.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that she has purchased three AC tickets from Patna to Sri Sathya Sai Prasanthi Nilayam Station via Manmad for 4^th June 2007 of train no. 2142 upto Manmad and from manmad to SSPN by train no. 2628 ( Karnataka Express ) she began her journey from Patna on 4^th June 2007 by train no. 2142 and reached manmad on 5^th June 2007 and thereafter she boarded train no. 2628 at manmad station.

It is further case of the complainant that during night of 5^th June she found that due to rain the window of her berth (coach no. AS2, 31) was leaking due to which the bed roll supplied to her completely soaked and it was not possible for her to sleep in her wet bedding. The complainant thereafter got ill and her illness was aggravated because she is patient of asthma.

The complainant has further asserted that she has made complaint the coach attendant who visited the berth physically and saw the leaking water from the window of the coach but refused to supply another bed roll or help in any way complainant could not sleep in the night as her bed roll was soaked due to rain water. In the next morning the complainant met the TTE on duty and filed a complaint in writing in the running train on 6^th June 2007 at 9 AM. She received the original copy of the complaint and rest carbon copy of the complaint remained with the TTE. The contents in the aforesaid application given to TTE has been reproduced in Para – 9 of the complaint petition.

The further case of the complainant is that she is a woman running a computer firm in the name and style of “ADITI COMPUTERS” and she has gone to help her ailing father who is about 80 years of the age but due to illness she become the source of trouble for her ailing father. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice to General Manager Easten central railway, hajipur and General Manager South Central Railway Sikandrabad.

On behalf of opposite party no. 1 a counter has been filed stating therein that this complainant is not maintainable at Patna as the occurrence has taken place between Manmad and SSPN which is under the South Western railway which is headed by its General Manager, Club Road, Keshwavpur, Hugli. Hence, the occurrence has taken beyond the administrative jurisdiction of opposite party no. 1.

On behalf of opposite party no. 2 and 3 a preliminary objection has been filed stating therein that as the dispute has been arisen in the state of Maharshtra which falls under the jurisdiction and South Western Railway hence the alleged occurrence has been taken out side of jurisdiction of opposite party no. 2 and 3.

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4 stating therein that complainant had never served any notice or letter of complainant to opposite party no. 4 i.e. Central Railway Administration.

It has been further stated that as the destination station lies in the jurisdiction of South central Railway under Bangalore division of South Western Railway and alleged coach is maintainable by South Western Railway Bangalore and North railway New Delhi hence this complaint against opposite party no. 4 is not maintainable.

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of Chief Ticket Inspector, Solapur. In Para – 3 of the aforesaid affidavit it is stated that there was no rain water leakage from AC smoke glass window of the complainant. The complainant has never made complaint in this regard to him and if such fact would have been brought to his notice he would have taken proper action by informing technical staff or would have allotted other vacant berth.

A reply has been also filed by opposite party no. 6 stating therein that during the period of alleged incident he was not on duty rather he was there 6.30 am to 9.00 am in the morning of 06.06.2007 when he received the alleged complaint at 9.00 am in the morning. He has further asserted in Para – 5 of his reply that he has told the complainant that inspite of giving complaint to him she should have given it to that TTE who was manning the coach during the period of alleged occurrence because he was not on duty at the relevant time. However, he forwarded the complaint to ADRM Guntakal for taking steps in that regard and thereafter a detail investigation has been conducted by opposite party no. 5 from which it transpires that there has no deficiency in the service on the part of opposite parties and there was no rain water leakage from smoke glass of the concerned AC could be found.

We have narrated the facts asserted by both parties in foregoing paragraphs.

So far maintenance of this complaint is concerned it is stated that as the ticket has been purchased in Patna hence this complaint is maintainable.

The complainant has asserted that the window of coach of the train of Karnataka Express train no. 2628 which was on way to SSPN from Manmad station was defective due to which the rain water was leaking and despite the complaint to coach attendant no other bed roll was supplied. The aforesaid ticket has not been annexed with the complaint petition. In affidavit the Chief Ticket Inspector, Solapur has asserted that there was no deficiency in the coach and if the complainant would have informed then he would have intimated the maintenance staff or would have allotted another seat to the complainant.

In written statement opposite party no. 5 has also asserted that on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, there was a enquiry/investigation conducted by Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Bangalore who has not found any leakage through smoke glass window of the aforementioned coach. Opposite party no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have also denied allegation on one pertext or other.

The aforementioned fact asserted by opposite parties has not been denied by the complainant as there is no rejoinder. It was the duty of the complainant to file relevant documents/evidence in order to prove her case but the aforementioned facts asserted by opposite parties has remained unchallenged.

For the discussion made above we find and hold that there is no conclusive material on the record to prove deficiency on the part of opposite parties.

For the reason stated above this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.