C KESAVA RAO Vs. SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant challenging the order of the DF dismissing his complaint. The facts in this case are as follows : the complainant was travelling in Nanded-Bangalore Link Express Train No.6593 from Raichur to Bangalore on a First Class ticket. According to him as per the ticket the upper berth was allotted to him. When he boarded the train he was shocked to notice that there was a lot of dust and it was not cleaned. No steps were taken to maintain the cleanliness of the berths in the compartment. Therefore, he filed the complaint as against the O. P. alleging deficiency in service.

(2.) The defence taken by the O. P. is that there is no such dust as alleged by the complainant and if there is any such dust accumulated on the berth the complainant would have lodged a complaint in any one of the intermediary stations between the Raichur and Bangalore. In the absence of such complaint, according to the O. P. , there is no truth in the averment made by the complainant in his complaint. The DF accepting the defence put forward by the O. P. dismissed the complaint.

(3.) If there is no such dust and cleanliness and every berth in the compartment maintained well normally no one would come forward to file any complaint alleging deficiency in service. In the instant case the complainant is an advocate and if really there is no such dust in the berth of the first class coach he would not have filed the complaint. The complainant has also filed an affidavit of the co-passenger one Mr. Shivamurthy, Assistant Accounts Officer, GESCOM, in support of his case. In the said affidavit he has stated that the berths were not maintained properly and there is dust in the berths of the First Class compartment. The complainant has also stated one Mr. Srinivasalu said to be a coach attendant came to the compartment and he was requested to clean the birth when there is any such averment made by the complainant in the complaint in the normal course the Railway Authority would have filed the affidavit of Mr. Srinivasalu before the DF. If that is so in our view the DF was not right in dismissing the complaint.