Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/147/2021

Ashok Kumar Parjapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Transport - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/147/2021
Date of Institution	:	08/03/2021
Date of Decision	:	21/11/2023

 

Ashok Kumar Parjapat, R/o Village Mohla, District Hisar, Haryana - 125042.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Director, Chandigarh Transport Enterprise, Industrial Area, Phase I, Near o/o sub Divisional Magistrate (East), Chandigarh 160002.
2. Director, Health and Family Welfare, Sector 16, Chandigarh 160015. (Complaint  against OP No.2 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.08.2023).

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Sachin, ADA for OP No.1.
	:	Complaint against OP No.2 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.08.2023.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      From the perusal of allegations made in the consumer complaint, it appears on 12.11.2019, complainant had travelled in the bus of OP-1 bearing No.CH01-GA-8140 from Rohtak to Panipat on payment of fare of Rs.90/ (Annexure C-1)- which is more than the prescribed rate by the OP No.1. The problem of smoking was experienced in Rohtak bus complex during this journey and at the end of the journey in Panipat bus complex. The complainant feels extremely suffocated, uncomfortable and insecure due to secondhand smoke. He felt problem of smoking which is against the provisions of COTPA 2003 and smoking material was also being sold. On being resisted, in order to avoid quarrel, complainant did not raise much protest. Fare was also overcharged. He took up the matter with the OPs but with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     Opposite Party No.1 contested the consumer complaint. In the present case the stand of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the office of Chandigarh Transport Undertaking pasted ‘No Smoking signage’s’ in tie of buses and installed No smoking signage’s’ at important places in all offices/Depot’s ISBT’s and there is no direct or indirect advertisement and sale of tobacco products in any of CTU premises. Smoking and use of Tobacco is totally prohibited in CTU buses under Tobacco Products Act, (COPTA) 2003. The fare was charged from complainant as per fare table issued by this office (Annexure R-3). There is neither any deficiency in service nor harassment by the answering respondents. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended.
3.     Perusal of the file indicates that the complaint against OP No.2 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.08.2023.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.1 and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The complainant has raised following two issues.

1. Overcharging of bus fare for the journey.
2. Non-issue of challan books to the bus conductor, in case the bus conductor has to issue challan’s to the offender/to the persons in case found smoking. 

8.     First, we examine the first issue regarding overcharging of the bus fare. We have perused the fare table annexed by the complainant and the OP No.1. The distance is 74 km, & rate of fare is Rs.1.13 per km, fare for which works out to be Rs.83.62. Toll tax as per table from 71 km to 90 km is Rs.7/- so total fare works out to be Rs.90.62/-. Hence, we are of the view that the correct fare of Rs.90/- has been charged by the OP No.1 from the complainant.
9.     Regarding 2nd point it is observed, the complainant has alleged that in the premises of Rohtak and Panipat bus stands, he found that people were smoking, where in these premises are not under the control of OP's. Hence, we cannot hold them responsible for the same. Moreover, so far as the allegation of smoking in the bus and in the bus stand is concerned, the complainant has utterly failed to prove this fact on record by way of any cogent and concrete evidence in the shape of affidavit of any witness or photograph of the persons smoking and their identity.
10.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
			Pawanjit Singh
			President
			Sd/-
21/11/2023			Surjeet Kaur
Ls			Member
			Sd/-
			Suresh Kumar Sardana
			Member