Complaint No: 221 of 2019.

                                                                Date of Institution: 08.07.2019.

                                                                        Date of order: 11.03.2024.

Ranjit Singh Son of Sh. Gurmit Singh, resident of VPO Chone, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143514.

                                                                                                                                                     ….......Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                    VERSUS

1.       M.K. Transport, Batala, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur, through its Proprietor Manjit Kaur D/o Gurwak Singh, resident of Village Chone, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143514.

2.       Davinder Singh Son of Baljit Singh, resident of Village Mari Panwan, P.O. Sri Hargobindpur, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur (Driver of Bus No. PB-06-Q-0566 of M.K. Transport, Batala) Mobile No. 99153-05145. Pin Code – 143515.

3.       Sarabjit alias Saabi alias Sunayare Son of Manjit Singh, resident of VPO Sri Hargobindpur, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur (Conductor of Bus No. PB-06-Q-0566 of M.K. Transport, Batala). Mobile No. 99144-27003. Pin Code – 143515.

4.       Lovely Son of Not known, resident of Village Bhamboi, P.O. Dhadiala Nazara, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur (Conductor-Helper of Bus No. PB-06-Q-0566 of M.K. Transport, Batala). Mobile No.  83839-00130. Pin Code – 143505.

5.       State Transport Commissioner, Chandigarh. Pin Code – 160055.                                                                 

                                                                                                                                          .....Opposite parties.  

                                                   Complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act. 

Present: For the Complainant: None.

             For the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4: Sh.Avinash Chander &  Sh.Charanjit Singh, Advocates.

             For the Opposite Party No.5: None.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Ranjit Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against M.K. Transport Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a handicapped person and having disability of 70%. Disability Certificate to this effect bearing No. GSG/89...200... issued by the Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur. It is pleaded that on dated 07.10.2017, the complainant boarded a Bus No. PB-06-Q-0566 of MK. Transport i.e. the OP No. 1 at 08.00 A.M. from Village Boje to Amritsar as the complainant had to go to Amritsar. As such, the complainant is the consumer of the OP No. 1. The complainant being handicapped person requested the conduct of the bus i.e. the OP No. 3 to provide reserve seat to him and requested him to give 50% concession as he is handicapped person, but the OP No.3 did not give concession and charged Rs.40/- from the complainant and said they did not take any contract of all handicapped persons of Punjab and has not given any concession of bus fare rather gave filthy abuses to the complainant in the presence of peoples sitting in the bus. The OP No. 3 said that this pass is not valid in this bus and we have not taken ‘Theka’ of handicapped persons and only gave Rs.5/- as discount being handicapped person whereas full fare is Rs.45/- per person. It is further pleaded that on dated 10.10.2017, the complainant again boarded the bus of the OP No. 1 i.e. bus registration No. PB-06-Q-0566 which was being driven by the OP No. 2 and this time the OP No. 4 was the conductor of the said bus. The complainant boarded the said bus at 04.30 P.M. from Amritsar to Boje. The complainant requested the OP No. 4 that he is handicapped person and has a right to sit on his reserved seat being provided by the Transport Department. It is further pleaded that the complainant showed his Handicapped Certificate / Pass to the OP No. 4, but he said that this bus pass is not valid in this bus and did not provide reserve seat to the complainant and said he will charge full amount of Rs.45/-. However, the complainant was charged Rs.40/- from Amritsar to Boje and was only given discount of Rs.5/- from full ticket rate. Whereas, the half ticket of the complainant was to be charged being handicapped person. Moreover, the OP No. 4 misbehaved with the complainant and spoke bad language about his caste prestige. It is further pleaded that when the bus reached near Village Bhoje at the destination of the complainant, the complainant demanded the photocopy of his bus Pass back from the OP No. 4 / Conductor of the bus, but he gave it to the driver of the bus namely Davinder Singh i.e. the OP No. 2 and did not return it to the complainant with the excuses that they have shown the same to the owner of the bus. The OP’s No. 2 and 4 both attacked the complainant. The OP No. 2 caught the complainant from his right arm and twisted it, OP No. 4 gave slaps on the face of the complainant and caught the complainant from the coler of his shirt and threw the complainant out of the bus by insulting him. It is further pleaded that as according to the policy of Punjab Govt. meant for handicapped and disabled persons of the society. The OP’s No. 1 to 4 are vicariously liable for the wrongful act. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has given complaint to Deputy Commissioner Gurdaspur, D.G.P. Punjab, Chief Minister, Punjab and State Transport Commissioner, Punjab i.e. the OP No. 5 regarding the illegal acts of the OP’s No. 1 to 4, but no action was taken against the M.K. Transport and its employees i.e. OP’s No. 1 to 4. It is further pleaded that as per Motor Vehicle Act, it is the duty of the State Transport Commissioner to impound and cancel the Permit of the OP No. 1 with recommendation in near future no fresh permit should be issued to the M.K. Transport Batala and further, to cancel the driving license of the driver of the bus i.e. OP No. 2 namely Davinder Singh, because the buses are plied on the road not only for general people, but also for the handicapped / disabled persons, deaf and dumb, blind persons, ladies, old aged persons and children etc. on priority basis, which are not providing good services and the OP No. 5 has failed to comply the true spirit of the Motor Vehicle Act in accordance with law, which shows the OP No. 5 is in hand in glow with the OP No. 1 i.e. M.K. Transport, Batala. It is further pleaded that the complainant who is a physically disabled person has also suffered mental and physical agony on account of the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties. The complainant is 70% handicapped person. So, he deserve his right to pay half fare and has right to sit on the reserved seat. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties have received excessive fare i.e. Rs.20/- from the complainant on dated 07.10.2017 and Rs.20/- on dated 10.10.2017, total amounting of Rs.40/-, which is against the law and order of the Punjab Government. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to refund Rs.40/- i.e. the amount of over charge / excessive fare from the complainant alongwith interest from the date of boarding the bus of the opposite party No. 1 till its realization. It is further prayed that the opposite parties may also be burdened with compensatory costs to tune of Rs.70,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties alongwith litigation expenses and counsel fee of Rs.20,000/-, in the ends of justice and fair play to the humble complainant.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 to 4 appeared through counsels and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and is not maintainable. As the services mentioned in the complaint are commercial in nature. So, the Ld. Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Thus, the complaint is barred under the Act and same is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is pleaded that the complainant is guilty of concealment of material facts and has not come in the Hon’ble Court with clean hands. As per the version of the complaint, the complainant mentioned in his complaint, that he boarded a bus of M.K. Transport from village Boje to Amritsar. In fact, there is no bus stop at village Boje. The complainant filed a false complaint against the answering OP’s with the aim to harass the answering OP’s and also get the stoppage of bus at his village Boje. It is further pleaded that earlier this complaint, the complainant had filed a complaint against the answering opposite parties to Deputy Commissioner, DGP Punjab, Transport Commissioner, but the Deputy Commissioner, DGP Punjab, Transport Commissioner found that the complaint was without any merit and same was dismissed. It is further pleaded that the complainant also moved complaint against the answering opposite parties to Chief Minister Punjab, but the complaint was without any merit and same was dismissed.

          On merits, the opposite parties No.1 to 4 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.5 appeared through its representative i.e. Sh. Gurpreet Singh and contested the complaint and filing their written reply, stating therein that as per the Punjab Government instructions circulated by the office of Director State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh to all the General Manager of Punjab Roadways, vide office letter No. 4198-4215 dated 24.06.2014, the differently able persons (Physically Challenged / Handicapped Persons) are entitled to travel free only in the Government owned buses i.e. Punjab Roadways, PUNBUS and PRTC. However, no such facility of free or concessional travel to any category of people including the differently able persons in the State of Punjab is being extended by the private operators in their private buses.

          On merits, the opposite party No.5 denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint qua the opposite party No.5.

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has filed Self-Attested affidavit of Ranjit Singh, (Complainant) alongwith Self-Attested documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12.

6.       Learned counsels for the opposite parties No.1 to 4 have filed reply.

7.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No.5 has filed document as Ex.OP-5/1 alongwith reply.

8.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

9.       Written arguments not filed by the parties.

10.     Since no one has appeared on behalf of complainant after three adjournments and case is of 2019 and cannot be kept pending waiting presence of the complainant, as such complaint is being disposed off after going through the facts of the case and after hearing counsel for the opposite parties.

11.     Complainant has pleaded that he is disabled person with 70% disability and on 07.10.2017 and thereafter on 10.10.2017 complainant has travelled from village Boje to Amritsar and Amritsar to Boje in the bus owned by opposite party No.1. It is asserted that complaint being handicapped person is entitled to 50% discount in passenger fare and reserve seat for handicapped person. It is further asserted that the staff of opposite party No.1 misbehaved with the complainant when he demanded the said facilities being handicapped person which amounts to deficiency in service.

12.     On the other hand counsels for the opposite parties No.1 to 4 has argued that there is no stoppage at village Boje as claimed by the complainant and since the complainant is demanding the stoppage at village Boje and as such has filed present false complaint without any cause of action and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 4.

13.     On the last so many dates none had appeared on behalf of opposite party No.5. However, in the written reply filed by opposite party No.5 it is pleaded that concession for disabled person is available only in the Govt. owned buses and not to the private operators. Accordingly, present complaint being false is liable to be dismissed.

14.     We have gone through the facts of the case as pleaded by the complainant and heard the arguments on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 4 and also gone through the facts as pleaded by the opposite party No.5.

15.     Perusal of Ex.OP-5/1 shows that the facility of concession and passengers fare is applicable to the passenger of Govt. own buses and no such facility is available and can be provided by the private operators. Complainant has placed on record passenger tickets Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 by way of which complainant has paid Rs.80/- to the opposite party No.1 and admittedly as per Ex.C1 complainant is handicapped person with 70% permanent disability. we are of the view that even if the concession of 50% passengers fare is not available to the complainant even then also the complainant is  definitely entitled to a seat to sit in the bus and respectful journey in the buses owned by the private operator having paid the fare. Accordingly, failure on the part of opposite party No.1 having failed to provide a seat and a respectful journey and good behavior from their staff amounts to deficiency in service.

16.     Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay consolidated amount of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant for inconvenience suffered by the complainant, mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, it is made clear that if amount is not paid within above said period of 30 days then the above referred amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of complaint till realization.

17.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

18.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                      President.  

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

March 11, 2024                                                     Member.

*YP*