Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/35/2024

ASHOK KUMAR PRAJAPAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

COMMISSIONER, HARYANA TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant(In person)

14 Aug 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	35 of 2024
Date of Institution	24.01.2024
Date of Decision	14.08.2024

 

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

   .…..Appellant/Complainant

Versus

Concerned Director (General Manager, Driver-Operator and Regional Officer of Tobacco) through Directorate, Haryana State Transport, 30 Bays Bhawan, Sector -17, Chandigarh-160017.

                                                            .…..Respondent/Opposite party. 

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by:  Sh. Ashok Kumar Prajapat, appellant – on VC.

                  Sh. Amanpreet Singh Virk, Govt. Pleader for the  Respondent along with Sh. Anil Kumar, Clerk O/o G.M., HR Bhiwani.

                  

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.11.2023, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the ‘District Commission’), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint No.322 of 2021.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 07.06.2019, the complainant travelled from Bhiwani to Meham in Haryana State Transport bus by paying fare of Rs.25/- (Annexure    C-1). During this trip, the driver smoked beedi as soon as he boarded the bus after the bus stopped for about half an hour. The complainant felt extremely suffocated, uncomfortable and insecure due to secondhand smoke, which was against the provisions of COTPA 2003 and smoking material was also being sold. On being resisted, in order to avoid quarrel, he did not raise much protest. It was further stated that he took the help of a good man’s vehicle to reach his destination, Meham, which meant that he had to pay an extra amount of Rs.10/- for which he did not use the services of the opposite party transport and was forced to get down in the middle of the journey. He took up the matter with the opposite parties for refund of Rs.10/- but of no avail.
3. Per record, the complaint against opposite party No.1 was withdrawn by the complainant on 30.08.2023.
4. However, opposite party No.2 (respondent herein) contested the consumer complaint by filing its reply, wherein it was stated that as per the statement of the driver of the bus Sh.Balwan Singh dated 7.6.2019, he was on duty on Bhiwani to Meham route. The bus started its journey at 18.10 for Meham. During this journey, he did not smoke at any point of time as well as the passengers/complainant also did not communicate him regarding any problem of smoking (Annexure D-1). It was further stated that during night hours, the office of General Manger, Haryana Roadways remained closed and the whole story concocted by the complainant was based on surmises and conjectures. It was further stated that opposite party No.2 never compromised with the safety and the security of his passengers and as such, there was no deficiency in service.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint and repudiating those as stated in the written statement.
6. Parties led evidence in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Parties and going through the record, the District Commission dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Parties.
9. We have heard the appellant/complainant as well as the Govt. Pleader for the respondent and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the parties and the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be partly accepted for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11. The grievance of the appellant/complainant is that he faced problem of smoking from the beginning of journey as the driver of the bus was smoking and secondly, due to suffocation, he got down from the bus at Chang and as such, the respondent was liable to refund Rs.10/- as he reached Meham with the help of a good man’s vehicle. 
12. So far as the first allegation of the appellant with regard to smoking in the bus is concerned, it may be stated here that in support of his allegation, the complainant had placed on record of the District Commission, Compact Disc and has narrated the whole conversation recorded therein, which took place between him and the driver in his rejoinder. We have played the CD and seen its contents. In the video, the driver of the bus could be clearly seen smoking while driving the bus as he was holding a beedi in his right hand. Thus, it is proved on record that the driver of the bus namely Sh. Balwan Singh was smoking while driving the bus. It is apposite to mention here that in its written arguments filed before the District Commission below, respondent – opposite party No.2, in para 6, has stated that since smoking etc. is a misconduct under the Haryana Civil Services (Government Employee’s Conduct) Rule, 2016, therefore, the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani took action upon the driver of the bus as per the provision of Haryana Civil Services Rules on submission of evidence/proof by the complainant and issued warning to the driver for future good conduct and also imposed penalty of Rs.200/- vide office order dated 02.05.2023, copy whereof was also placed on record alongwith the written arguments. In the office order aforesaid, it is mentioned that since the reply given by the driver Mr. Balwan Singh and video provided by the complainant did not match, therefore, the Traffic Manager was appointed as the Investigating Officer to verify the veracity of the case and after finding, the driver guilty in the investigation, department action was taken and charge-sheet was issued. After thoroughly reviewing the case file, vide the aforesaid office order, a strict warning was issued to the driver Balwan Singh to be careful in future and recovery of Rs.200/- was also ordered from him. However, the District Commission failed to take notice of this vital evidence, which was enough to hold the respondent/opposite lacking in providing good, safe, congenial and smoke free environment in the buses and its complexes/bus stands by strictly instructing their staff including drivers and conductors to strictly adhere to the rules, regulation and guidelines etc. Thus from perusal of Annexure R-2, order dated 02.05.2023 holding the driver of the bus guilty of misconduct while on duty and imposing fine of Rs.200/-, it is very much clear that the driver was smoking within the bus.
13. Thus, it is proved on record that the appellant/complainant faced problem, inconvenience and suffocation due to the said act of smoking by the bus driver. However, the District Commission, miserably failed to understand the level of mental agony and harassment, which the appellant/complainant suffered due to this deficiency in service on the part of the driver. It is the prime duty of the Department – respondent/opposite party to ensure that such kind of things may not happen in bus or at bus complexes, which puts the passengers and commuters into difficult situation and suffocated environment. We all know very well that passive smoking, also known as secondhand smoke, is highly injurious to health. It involves the involuntary inhalation of smoke by non-smokers who are near to active smokers. The harmful effects of passive smoking have been well-documented and it is recognized as a significant public health issue. Exposure to secondhand smoke can lead to a variety of health problems including respiratory infections, heart disease and lung cancer. The risk is particularly high in enclosed spaces such as buses, where the smoke can concentrate and linger, making it especially dangerous for passengers. Thus, in the confined environment of a bus, passive smoking becomes even more harmful. Buses are typically crowded, enclosed spaces with limited ventilation, which means that smoke can quickly accumulate and affect all passengers, regardless of where they are seated. This concentrated exposure increases the likelihood of adverse health effects. Passengers, including children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions and co-morbidities, are particularly vulnerable. Even short-term exposure can trigger asthma attacks, worsen existing respiratory issues, and contribute to the development of cardiovascular diseases. Furthermore, allowing smoking in buses is not only detrimental to health but also against the principles set forth in The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 or COTPA, 2003 and various public health policies designed to protect individuals from the dangers of secondhand smoke. This finds expression in prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008. Many countries have enacted strict regulations to prohibit smoking in public transportation to safeguard the health of all passengers. These regulations are in place to ensure a safe and healthy environment for everyone, free from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. The prohibition of smoking in public transportation is part of a broader effort to reduce the prevalence of smoking-related illnesses and promote public health. By enforcing these regulations, authorities aim to minimize the exposure of non-smokers to the dangers of secondhand smoke and encourage a healthier lifestyle. Thus, passive smoking poses significant health risks, especially in the confined spaces of a bus. It is imperative to adhere to regulations that prohibit smoking in public transportation to protect the health and well-being of all passengers. Public awareness campaigns and stringent enforcement of no-smoking policies in buses and other forms of public transportation are essential steps in this direction, which, in our considered opinion, the respondent/ opposite party is failing in.
14. It may be stated here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in shaping policies regarding the prohibition of smoking in public places. One of the landmark judgments in this context is the 2001 ruling in the case of Murli S. Deora vs Union of India & Ors. This case is significant as it addressed the harmful effects of passive smoking and the need to protect non-smokers from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Union of India, State Governments, and Union Territories to prohibit smoking in public places likeHospitals and health care institutions, Educational institutions, Public offices, Public transport, Libraries, auditoriums, court buildings and other public places. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized the right of non-smokers to a smoke-free environment, reinforcing that their health should not be compromised by the actions of smokers. It further directed the Central and State governments to take necessary measures to implement and enforce the prohibition of smoking in public places, which included the formulation of regulations and policies to ensure compliance with the directives. The Hon’ble Apex Court further recognized the adverse health impacts of passive smoking and emphasized the responsibility of the government to protect public health. However, in its defence, the respondent/opposite party has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled ‘Ashok Kumar Prajapat Versus Commissioner, Haryana Roadways & 2 Ors.’ Revision Petititon No.224 of 2023 alongwith other two Revision Petitions bearing No.225 of 2023 and 694 of 2023 decided on 22.03.2024, whereby the said orders passed by Fora below dismissing the complaints were upheld and the revision petitions were dismissed. We have minutely gone through the facts of the said judgment of Hon’ble  National Commission. In those cases, the incident of smoking occurred outside the bus at a public place, whereas, in the instant case, it had happened inside the bus. Thus, the facts of those cases being distinguishable, the same are of no help to the respondent/opposite party.
15. Thus, in our considered view, respondent/ opposite party is very much deficient and defaulter as it has failed to ensure that its employees i.e. drivers would not smoke in bus. Imposing a petty fine on him would not set the problem at rest rather it is very easy, you first smoke in bus and then pay petty fine subsequent, if caught. The respondent/opposite party has also failed to complete adherence to the provisions of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply, and Distribution) Act, 2003, which bans smoking in public places, such as auditoriums, hospitals, public offices, public transportation and educational institutions, to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects of passive smoking. The Act also empowers various authorities and designated government officials, to enforce its provisions. They are authorized to inspect, seize, and take action against violations of the Act. In view of above, in our considered view, the respondent/ opposite party has miserably failed to ensure implementation of its own policies and regulations, which bars smoking in public places and public transports etc. and also failed to ensure compliance of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court and the provisions of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply, and Distribution) Act, 2003. Thus, for inconvenience, mental agony and harassment, caused to the appellant/complainant on account of passive smoking in the bus, the respondent/opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the appellant/complainant.
16. We further observe that the respondent – opposite party must take effective and stern measures to ensure that smoking is completely prohibited within all buses and bus stand complexes. Such a directive should be issued by the respondent – opposite party in strict adherence to the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), which mandates the prohibition of smoking in public places to protect public health and welfare. To achieve this, the transport department is required to enforce a zero-tolerance policy towards smoking in all buses and within the premises of bus stands. This includes prominently displaying no-smoking signs, conducting regular checks to ensure compliance and taking immediate action against violators. The department must also engage in awareness campaigns to educate passengers and staff about the harmful effects of smoking and the legal consequences of violating the COPTA. Furthermore, transport officials and bus stand authorities should collaborate with local law enforcement agencies to ensure that these measures are rigorously enforced. Any breach of these regulations should be dealt with severely. The respondent – opposite party should ensure a healthy and smoke-free environment for all commuters, ensuring that public transportation spaces are safe and conducive to the well-being of all citizens.
17. As regards the claim of refund of Rs.10/- by the appellant/complainant as he got down from the bus due to smoking and reached Meham with the help of a good man’s vehicle, we are of the considered view that this request of his cannot be acceded due to the simple reason that it was his own choice to get down from the bus. Further, it may be stated here that it is not a case of charging of excess fare from the appellant/complainant. Thus, his claim of refund of Rs.10/- is rejected.
18. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent/opposite party is directed to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/complainant for mental agony and physical harassment and costs of litigation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.5,000/- shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization.
19. In view of observations made above, we dispose this appeal by directing  the respondent – opposite party to take effective and stern measures to ensure that smoking is completely prohibited within all buses and bus stand complexes, as observed by us in Para 16 above.
20. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
21. File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

14.08.2024

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                               

 [RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad