1.      Three Revision Petition Nos. RP/224/2023, RP/225/2023, and RP/694/2023, have been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the "Act"). These Revision Petitions challenged the Orders dated 01.12.2022, 08.08.2022, and 22.12.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana, Chandigarh (the ‘State Commission’), respectively. These orders pertained to First Appeal Nos. FA/953/2018, FA/226/2021, & FA/40/2022. The State Commission, in these appeals by the Complainant, affirmed the impugned Orders, thus upholding the decisions made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal, Jind & U.T. Chandigarh, respectively (“District Forum”), in CC/395/2016, CC/76/2019 & CC/1127/2019.

2.      As the facts and questions of law involved in all three Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for minor variations in dates, events and places, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. To facilitate clarity and convenience, FA No. 953/2018 shall be considered as the primary / lead case, with the facts outlined below being extracted from Consumer Complaint No. 395/2016.

3.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum & State Commission.

4.      In brief, on 31.07.2016, the Complainant traveled from Chandigarh to Delhi, purchasing a ticket for Rs.575/- on Bus No. HR55Q3914 operated by Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon Depot. During the journey, both the driver and conductor smoked near the bus window at a stop in Karnal, causing smoke to enter the bus and inconvenience to him who was seated behind the conductor's seat. The Complainant asserted that under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003, open cigarettes cannot be sold in Haryana tourist places, and the tourism department failed to enforce this rule. The Complainant filed a complaint with the General Manager of Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon, who fined the driver and conductor Rs.200/- each and notified the Complainant via a letter dated 23.08.2016. However, the Complainant believes that this action by the General Manager was merely a formality. Consequently, feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Complaint numbered CC/395/2016 before the District Forum.

5.      In the joint reply, the Opposite Parties (OPs) refuted the allegations made by the complainant. The OPs admitted that the Complainant traveled on bus No. HR 55Q 3914. However, they stated that upon receiving the complaint about the incident of smoking on 31.07.2016, they had already fined both the conductor and driver Rs.200/- each in accordance with the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) 2003. The OPs further asserted that smoking articles were not allowed to be sold in bus stand areas under their jurisdiction. They vehemently denied the allegation that they merely went through a formality in response to his grievance, emphasizing that the action taken was in accordance with the provisions of the Smoking Act. Additionally, all Haryana Roadways buses were clearly marked with "No Smoking" signs, and the driver and conductor cabins were typically separate from the passenger seats, especially in air-conditioned buses. Any smoke entering the bus would have been due to a passenger opening a window.

6.      The District Forum, vide order dated 16.05.2018, dismissed the complaint. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Complainant filed FA No. 953/2018 before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 01.12.2012 found no irregularity or perversity in the impugned order and subsequently dismissed the appeal.

7.      The Petitioner, discontented with the Impugned Order dated 01.12.2012, and filed the RP No. 224 of 2023, seeking the following

“8. You are humbly requested to consider and grant the following prayers, and to overturn the impugned order dated 01.12.2012, issued by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula. This action is imperative to safeguard the rights of consumers and to ensure that deficient service providers are appropriately penalized.

a. To admit the legitimate consumer grievances arising from the travel incident on 31.07.2016 and provide appropriate redressal and relief to the Petitioner.

b. Ensure that the Opposing Parties (OPs) exercise due diligence and responsibility in the future to prevent similar incidents.

c. Additionally, to take any further actions deemed necessary or appropriate, in accordance with established rules and regulations, to enhance the safety and quality of travel experiences.”

8.      The Petitioner/Complainant has challenged the impugned order of the State Commission on following grounds:-

1. The evidence provided, including the receipt confirming smoking during the journey, sufficiently demonstrates the deficiency in service, which is violation of consumer rights. Despite the absence of a separate cabin in the Volvo air-conditioned bus, the complaint against the consumer was upheld, setting a precedent that employees smoking in bus premises will go unpunished, thereby denying the consumer compensation for the inconvenience caused.
2. The habitual smoking of transport workers during duty hours persisted despite numerous instructions and orders. Seeking the intervention of the forum for finding permanent solution to this issue, which was disregarded in the decision. Moreover, the acceptance of services provided in a smoky environment in Haryana has deterred complaints. However, decisions like this one will only discourage complainants and perpetuate the prevalence of smoking among personnel, despite the increasing number of fines imposed.
3. The decision ignores consumer rights such as the right to a safe environment, grievance redressal, compensation, and safe travel. It suggests either silently enduring irregularities or seeking compensation through complaints, rather than addressing the root cause of the issue. Smoking by employees in public places, including vehicles, is a serious offense, and a mere fine of Rs. 200 is insufficient. The decision appears to protect the offenders rather than penalizing them appropriately.
4. The decision contradicts the preamble and rules of the Consumer Protection Act, which guarantees compensation for consumer grievances. The rights outlined in Section 3 of the Act should be upheld, ensuring compensation for consumer troubles in addition to any compensation received under other laws. Referring to the Supreme Court case of State of Karnataka vs. Visva-Bharati House Building Co., it is emphasized that compensation under the Consumer Protection Act should not be inferior to compensation under any other law, and the Act does not preclude the jurisdiction of other authorities. Furthermore, despite repeated communications, the rights of passengers have not been acknowledged, and no complaint book was available on the bus as mandated by Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The decision undermines consumer rights and protection, boosting the morale of offenders.

9.      Upon the notice of the Revision Petition, Respondents No. 1 and 2 appeared and submitted a joint reply raising preliminary objections as regards maintainability and validity of the complaint filed. It was contended that the nature of the complaint is more of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) rather than a genuine consumer-service provider dispute as envisaged under the Act, 1986. They contended that the Orders issued by the fora below were legally sound and appropriate, especially considering that the bus driver and conductor were already fined Rs.200 each under COTPA 2003. Additionally, the Respondents highlighted that the Petitioner's claim for compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs lacked substantiating evidence, apart from a mere affidavit. They vehemently denied other allegations made in the revision petitions and requested the dismissal of the present Revision Petition in the interest of justice.

10.    During the arguments, the Petitioner/ Complainant appearing in person retreated the grounds of the revision petition and the facts he had pleaded before the Ld. District Forum and Ld. State Commission.  On the other hand, learned Counsel for OPs questioned the complaint’s validity as in was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) rather than a complaint under the Act. He reiterated that the Orders issued by the fora below are well reasoned and legal. The delinquent bus staff were already fined Rs.200 each under COTPA 2003. Further, his claim for compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs lacks any reasonable explanation.

11.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record including the orders of the learned fora below and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the Complainant appearing in person and the learned Counsel for the OPs.

12.    The central question in this case is whether the incident of smoking by the OP staff during the Complainant's journey on the Haryana Roadways bus constitutes a deficiency in service under the Act. Additionally, it questions whether the imposition of a fine on the bus driver and conductor adequately addresses the complainant's grievances and whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the inconvenience caused by the smoking incident.

13.    It is revealed that the Petitioner/Complainant had filed similar Complaints, Appeals, and Revision petitions against the Respondents across various forums, including this Commission. In a related case, RP No. 567 of 2022 (and connected matters) titled Director General, State Transport, Haryana & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar Prajapat, a Coordinate Bench of this Commission vide order on 04.10.2023, directed the Director General, State Transport, Haryana to compensate the petitioner with Rs.10,000/- for each petition involved, along with Rs.3,000/- towards litigation costs for each petition. The relevant excerpts of the Order dated 04.10.2023 are reproduced as under – 

“12.     In view of the above, we are of the view that the State Commission’s order needs modification.  Accordingly, all the Revision Petitions covered under this order are disposed of with following directions:

(a)  OP-1/Petitioner herein shall take all appropriate actions within two months of this order to ensure the removal of deficiency in service i.e. menace of smoking by drivers/ conductors/co-passengers in buses run by it, failing which, it shall be liable for penal action(s) under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

b)  OP-1/Petitioner herein shall pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- in each case i.e. a total of Rs.70,000/- along with cost of Rs.3,000/- in each case i.e. Rs.21,000/- in total for the seven Revision Petitions, within one month of this order.

(c)  In case OP-1/Petitioner fails to pay the amount as per this order within one month, it shall carry interest @9% per annum.”

14.    In the present case, the complaints were filed by the Petitioner after allegedly experiencing inconvenience due to smoking by the bus personnel during a journey from Chandigarh to Delhi on 31.07.2016. Despite raising the issue and subsequent imposition of fines of Rs.200/- on the erring staff, he considered that this action to be merely symbolic and insufficient. Consequently, he filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation and redressal for inconvenience caused. The Respondents contested the allegations and maintained that action as appropriate was already taken in response to the complaint, including the imposition of fines on the staff. They argued that the complaint is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) rather than a complaint under the Act. The Orders of the lower fora are legally sound. In response to the impugned order of the State Commission, the petitioner challenged it on several grounds, primarily alleging a violation of consumer rights and failure to provide adequate compensation for the inconvenience caused. He argued that the decision ignored the seriousness of the offense, perpetuated a smoky environment in public places undermining consumer rights guaranteed by the Act. However, OPs raised preliminary objections on the maintainability and validity of the complaint, highlighting the fines imposed on the bus staff and lack of substantiating evidence for his compensation claim. At the same time, however, the incident of smoking occurred outside the bus at a public place and the staff was pelalised. Also, the Petitioner could have easily closed the window or taken other steps to insulate himself from the impact of smoke, which he did not and chose to file a complaint.

15.    In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the same. Consequently, all three Revision Petitions 224 of 2023, 225 of 2023 and 694 of 2023 are Dismissed for being devoid of merit.   

16.    There shall be no orders as to costs.

17.    All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.