1.             This is an appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 5.10.2009 passed in complaint case No.967 of 2009 : Chandigarh Administration Vs. Sh. Manjit Singh Saini.

2.             The complaint had been filed by the Chandigarh Administration consequent to the call of going on strike by the school bus operators.

3.             Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that it issued directions vide Annexure C-1 to all Bus Operators including the school buses to install speed governors keeping in view the safety of the school going children as well as public at large. It was averred that instead of complying with the said directions, OP proceeded on indefinite strike due to which about 80,000 school children and their parents had to suffer despite the fact that the Bus Operators had already been paid the consideration/charges well in advance to ferry the students from their houses to school and vice-versa. It was next averred that OP had failed to render due service in spite of taking the amount in advance and rather proceeded on indefinite strike, which amounted to its indulgence in unfair trade practice. The complainant also averred that the OP Bus Operators also charged fee from the parents of school children even for the idle period i.e. summer vacation on the pretext of installation of speed governors in their buses but according to the norms, they could only charge one half of the amount of the fee charged during the said month and by doing so, the OP had indulged in unfair trade practice.  As per the complainant, OP including all the Bus Operators, who had been engaged by the School Authorities for the students, had been given special exemptions like Road Tax, Nominal Permit Fee as well as other facilities to further ensure that they should provide best services to the students. Alleging the act of OP as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant had filed the present complaint seeking compensation for the great harassment suffered by it including the school children and their parents.     

4.             The version of OP is that OP is the President of Welfare Association of School Bus Operators and the directions (C-1) had been issued by the Chandigarh Administration in haste while the discussion with OP was going on.  It was stated that Chandigarh Administration adopted arm twisting measures to implement its order without considering the pros and cons of the same.  It was also stated that neither the OP had any authority to give a call for strike or to rescind it nor had he done so and it was the general body of School Bus Operators Welfare Association, which took such decision. OP next stated that the School Bus Operators Welfare Association had not received any fee/charges nor it had rendered any service to the bus users. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part as well as unfair trade practice, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.             The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint, recorded in the impugned order that there was definitely a relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and the learned District Forum turned down the objection of the OP that there existed no relation ship of consumer and the service provider between the parties. It also recorded that whether the fee was being paid directly to the Private School Bus Operators  or through the school would not change the status of the OP from the service provider to something else.  The relationship of the consumer and service provider is therefore proved to exist between the parties. The learned District Forum also recorded that even if none of the school children had filed the complaint, the one filed by the complainant was maintainable as the Central Government or the State Government would be a complainant with respect to the problem faced by the public. The learned District Forum further recorded that when the Private School Bus Operators  resorted to strike, about 80,000 students were rendered helpless and their parents had to transport them to the schools and back in private vehicles because where only one bus used to ferry 50/60 children now, there were 50/60 vehicles for them at the gate of every school and the road leading to it to take back their wards. It further recorded that the State Government had to provide for the Police Force to regulate the traffic and they had to arrange about 30 additional buses for this purpose. As regards the preliminary objection relating to the Private School Bus Operators being necessary parties, the learned District Forum observed that all these Private School Bus Operators  had formed an association and the OP was their President and therefore, represented all the individual Private School Bus Operators. Thus, in the view of learned District Forum, there was no need to implead all the School Bus Operators in the present case. Next dealing with the argument of learned counsel for the OP as regards there being no agreement between the parties, the learned District Forum turned down this objection of OP on the ground that no written agreement was required to prove the relationship of a consumer and service provider and it was not disputed that the Private School Bus Operators  were collecting fee from the school children might be through their respective schools. The learned District Forum also recorded that the order dated 10.7.2009 was passed by the Chandigarh Administration in view of the situation created by the strike of the Private School Bus Operators. The learned District Forum also recorded that OP never asked for extension of time in filing reply and evidence and in fact, the time granted to him was sufficient to prepare the reply and file the same, which was filed by him within the period. In view of its above discussion, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to it and the school children. It also held that the Private School Bus Operators, who were the members of the Association headed by OP were not entitled to retain the service charges during the said period of strike.  It further directed the School Bus Operators headed by OP to refund at least 7 days charges to each of the students for the month in which they went on strike and the amount already charged by them, if not refunded, was ordered to be adjusted during the payment of transportation charges for the next month.  The order was directed to be complied with by the OP including all the Private School Bus Operators and the members of the association of OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of coy of the failing which the OP was made liable to pay a further sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and also pay the amount in question along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 10.7.2009 till the same was deposited with the complainant the complainant was given the liberty to use the amount of compensation for the benefit of the school children.

6.             Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the OP has filed the present appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, notice was sent to the Respondent (complainant) and record of complaint case was summoned from the District Forum concerned. Sh. B. J. Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellant (OP) whereas Sh. M. S. Sihag, District Attorney represented the Respondent (Complainant).

7.             Sh. B. J. Singh, Advocate learned counsel for the Appellant/OP submitted that a wrong affidavit had been filed by the Complainant and he clarified that Sh. Manjit Singh Saini, OP was not a service provider personally and further clarified that he is only the President of the Chandigarh School Bus Operators Welfare Association (for short hereinafter to be referred as the Association). He thereafter referred to Annexure A-2, which is the constitution of the Society. The learned counsel thereafter took a preliminary objection regarding the Complainant not being a consumer qua the OP and also submitted that the Complainant had been given no authority to file this complaint on behalf of 80000 parents of allegedly effected students. He also clarified that there are three types of bus operators and the Association does not control all the three types of these operators. He emphatically submitted that the complaint was bad for non joinder of parties because the bus operators and the parents who were also effected parties had not been impleaded. The next limb of argument of the learned counsel was that no proof had been provided by the Complainant that the OP had given the call for strike or its calling of. The next submission of learned counsel was that in the complaint, incorrect facts had been mentioned. He wondered, how only 500 school buses, which are operating in the U.T, could carry 80000 students as alleged by the complainant. The next submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant was that only three days notice was given in the press to the OP to file the reply whereas the OP by statute was entitled to receive 30 days notice and therefore, this was a patent illegality committed by the learned District Forum. He also submitted that the learned District Forum had erred in passing an interim injunction, which in fact had been prayed as a final relief in the complaint. Coming to the award of compensation, the learned counsel submitted that the learned District Forum had provided no basis for awarding the compensation. He also submitted that there was no evidence on file to prove that the Complainant Chandigarh Administration had to press into service additional buses for ferrying the students and had also to deploy additional police force to control additional traffic consequent to the strike of the bus operators. He further submitted that even another irregularity had been done by the learned District Forum in allowing interest on the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded as compensation retrospectively from the date of filing of the complaint. He also stressed that whereas the strike was only for three days, OP had been directed to refund bus charges for seven days. He thus emphatically contended that the relief granted by the learned District Forum was not only excessive but it was also illegal. His final submission was that the complainant had acted with malafide intentions and the directions given by it to the bus operators to install speed governors in the buses was with the aim to give undue benefit to some companies and in this context, he also referred to Annexures A-5 and A-6 to prove his contention that the company whose kit had been directed to be installed was charging exorbitantly. The learned counsel thereafter emphatically prayed that in view of the fact that the complainant not being a consumer, the complaint was not maintainable and also the relief granted by the learned District Forum were illegal, the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

8.             Sh. M. S. Sihag, District Attorney for the Respondent /Complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the OP had been arrayed in representative capacity as the President in his personal capacity as Manjit Singh Saini and he further clarified that this aspect had been made amply clear in Para No.1 of the complaint itself. The learned counsel, thereafter, referred to Annexure C-2, which was the threat of strike and indicated to the Bench that the same had been signed by Sh. Manjit Singh Saini as President of the Association. With regard to the member of persons who suffered due to the strike of the bus operators, he submitted that the number of 80000 included the students as well as the parents. He also vehemently submitted that the exact number per se did not matter but the sufferance of a very large number of the students and their parents stood clearly proved. He also submitted that thirty additional buses had been deployed by the Administration to provide some relief and it had also to deploy a large number of police force in the close vicinity of the schools to regulate traffic as a large number of students were being left at the schools by the parents of the students in their personal transport. With regard to the shortage of time given for filing the reply, the learned counsel clarified that this point was immaterial at this stage as eventually, the reply had been filed by the OP and the same had been done in a due time and OP has failed to prove that any prejudice has been caused to him due to the lesser time given for filing the reply. With regard to the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that an ad interim order has been passed, which in fact provided the final relief sought, the learned counsel clarified to the Bench that this issue had now become meaningless as the interim order was never challenged by the OP. With regard to the relief granted by the learned District Forum, the learned counsel submitted that it was only a notional and nominal compensation awarded by the learned District Forum and he also clarified that four days additional relief in terms of refund of bus charges was given by the learned District Forum to compensate the sufferance of the students and he emphatically submitted that there was no irregularity or illegality in the relief granted. He, in the end, submitted that the impugned order was very well reasoned, detailed and justified and therefore, prayed that it be upheld.

9.             We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main issues, which arose and to be gone into are as under: -

(a)      Is the Complainant entitled to file the complaint?

(b)      Was there any illegality in the proceedings conducted by the learned District Forum, which makes the proceedings null and void?

(c)      Is the relief granted as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

10.           Coming to the first issue with regard to the maintainability of the complaint and the complainant being a consumer, Section 12(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly provides that the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be either in its individual capacity or as a representative of interest of the consumers in general can make a complaint. In the present complaint, U.T. Administration has categorically stated that the complaint has been filed in the interest of the consumers in general i.e. the students and their parents. Admittedly, in such a case, there is no requirement for the Administration to pay any direct consideration to the OP. Since in the matter in hand, admittedly, the students/their parents have paid consideration for the provision of school bus service to the bus operators, as per law and in our considered view, the Chandigarh Administration had the legal right to file the complaint and thus, the complaint is adequately maintainable. Now the issue with regard to impleading Sh. Manjit Singh Saini is concerned, it has also been adequately clarified that the complaint is against the President of the Association  and not against Sh. Manjit Singh Saini personally and thus, the liability to pay any compensation/relief rests on the Association and not on Sh. Manjit Singh Saini as an individual. It is observed by us that the memo of parties is not very happily worded and it could have been well been Chandigarh School Bus Operators Welfare Association through Sh. Manjit Singh Saini, President but as per the settled law, such technicalities are not to come in the way of dispensation of substantial justice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thus, we find no merit in the contention of the OP that the Chandigarh Administration was not entitled to file the complaint and that it has not been filed against a proper party.

11.           Now coming to the second issue with regard to any illegality in the proceedings conducted by the District Forum, the contention of OP is that he was not given adequate time to file his reply as is provided for under the C. P. Act. Be that as it may, it is on record that the reply had been filed within the stipulated time and hence, at this stage, any objection with regard to this issue makes no legal sense. The second illegality pointed out in the proceedings by the learned counsel for the OP is that the learned District Forum had passed an ad interim injunction vide zimini order giving financial relief prayed for in the complaint. In this context, it is relevant to mention that no revision petition had been filed against the order of ad interim injunction and thus, again raising this issue now when the matter has attained finality makes no legal sense. Thus, we are of the clear view that the learned District Forum has not committed any legal irregularity while disposing of the complaint.

12.           Coming to the final issue with regard to the relief directed to be paid by the OP, the school bus operators headed by the OP have been directed to refund at least seven days charges to each of the student for the month in which they went on strike or adjust the same during the payment of transportation charges for the next month. The objection of the OP to this part of the relief is that whereas the strike lasted only for three days, the bus operators have been directed to refund the charges for seven days. In this context, it is relevant to point out that the relief to be granted by the Consumer Fora is not only to compensate the complainant for the actual financial loss suffered but is also for compensating the complainant for the harassment caused to him and thus, in this view of the matter, we find no illegality in this part of the direction given by the learned District Forum. Coming to the second part of the relief granted to the complainant, the OP has been directed to pay the complainant i.e. Chandigarh Administration a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the harassment caused to the Administration and the school children. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that since the children have already been compensated by the earlier relief granted by the learned District Forum vide which a refund of seven days transportation charges had been ordered, another compensation out of this amount of Rs.50,000/- to the children for their sufferance cannot be legally sustained. Furthermore, the Administration on its part has not placed any evidence on record to indicate any financial loss suffered by it. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this amount of Rs.50,000/- directed to be paid to the complainant by the OP is on the higher side. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per the learned counsel for the complainant, this compensation is primarily symbolic in nature and that being so, in our considered view, to this extent, the impugned order needs to be modified. However, we find no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the OP that the learned District Forum has erred in granting interest retrospectively from the date of filing of the complaint. In this context, a critical perusal of the order clearly indicates that this direction along with cost of litigation quantified as Rs.10,000/- is only applicable in case OP fails to comply with the directions of the learned District Forum within a period of 30 days. Hence, we find no illegality in this direction.

13.           In the end, we also want to mention that the point raised by the learned counsel for the OP that the directions to fit speed governors to the school buses was given in haste and with a view to unduly help some companies, does not need to be gone into by us at this stage because if that be so, the OP has a legal recourse available to it to redress this grievance. But we are definitely of the view that even if this was a genuine grievance of the OP, even then resorting to effecting the bus strike thereby causing harassment and inconvenience to the students and their parents was not the right course to be adopted by the OP and it definitely amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP qua the students and their parents who had been regularly without default admittedly paying the bus charges to the bus operators.

14.           In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that now the amount of compensation to be paid to the complainant (Chandigarh Administration) is reduced to Rs.11,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- as awarded vide the impugned order. Subject to this modification, the impugned order is upheld.

15.           Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

8^th March 2010.