Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1127/2019

Ashok Kumar Prajapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Transport - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1127/2019
Date of Institution	:	23/12/2019
Date of Decision	:	03/01/2020

 

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.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

                       

ARGUED BY

:

Complainant in person

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      From the perusal of allegations made in the consumer complaint, it appears on 22.8.2019, complainant had travelled in the bus of OP-1 bearing No.CH01-G1-7551 from Kaithal to Hisar on payment of fare of Rs.110/-. His case is, on completion of journey at Hisar bus stand, 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 lakhs alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     From the perusal of the allegations made in the consumer complaint, it appears the allegations relates to public interest litigation which this Forum is not competent to take cognizance of. Not only this, his case is cigarettes were being sold in the shops.  Sale of cigarette is not banned rather smoking at public places is. Cigarette in itself is not a contraband likewise charas, opium and ganja, but, its smoking at public place and sale to a minor is prohibited.  If somebody violates law, there are officers who challan the violators under the relevant Act. The deficiency on point of travelling in the bus against which the payment was made has not been highlighted in the consumer complaint.  It is also not the case, OP-1 had permitted smoking or the sale of cigarettes at public places. Even the perusal of the allegations made in the consumer complaint do not display and identify the person who was smoking at public place in violation of law. If somebody violates and brakes law, the authorities are competent to challan and punish him under the relevant provisions. It cannot be taken, every violation of law is to be taken as a consumer rights violation. More or less, the allegations relates to public interest litigation of which this Forum is not competent to take note of. 
3.     Bald allegations made fare was overcharged.  No documents produced on record what was the actual fare and what amount overcharged by the conductor.
4.     From the record it is evident even today there are two other similar nature of consumer complaints of complainant against the transport authorities. Even it is also being noticed, similar types of consumer complaints are being filed by the complainant claiming exorbitant compensation like in present consumer complaint of Rs.4.00 lakhs alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. The complaint does not seem to be bonafide one within the domain of this Forum and the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be used as a tool to terrorise the OP with a view to generate source of income by filing consumer complaints without any substance.
5.         From the above material on record, we find it is not an admitable consumer complaint and proceed to dismiss the same, at preliminary stage. Ordered accordingly. 
6.     The certified copies of this order be sent to the complainant free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/01/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President