STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH

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

                                                                                 …Appellant

                                         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.                                                                                                                                                                                        …...Respondents

BEFORE:      JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                       Mr.RAJESH K.ARYA, MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Present   :      Sh.Ashok Kumar Prajapat, Appellant in person. 

                       Sh.Rajinder Singh, Govt. Pleader, on behalf of Respondents.

PER  PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                     This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.03.2022, rendered by  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh          (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the complaint bearing No.CC/1127/2019, being meritless.  

 2.                    Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was  case of the complainant/appellant  that   on 22.08.2019, he travelled in the bus of Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.1 bearing  registration No.CH01-G1-7551 from Kaithal to Hisar by paying bus  fare of Rs.110/-. The grouse of the complainant is that during journey, when the said bus stopped for short rest at Kalayat Bust Stand, and on completion of his journey at the  premises of Bus Stand, Hissar, he suffered  problem due to  indirect smoking, which is against the provisions of COTPA, 2003. The further grouse of the complainant is that prohibited  smoking material was also being sold in the premises of bus stand. On being resisted, in order to avoid quarrel, complainant did not raise much protest. The further grouse of the complainant is that bus fare was also overcharged. He took up the matter with the Opposite Parties/respondents by writing letters dated 22.8.2019 and 3.10.2019, in reply to which, he was advised to take up the matter under COTP Act,2003. Regarding overcharging, it was replied that the bus fare was charged correctly. Being dissatisfied from the reply of Opposite Parties, he filed a  consumer complaint  before the Ld. Lower Commission claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.            Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.1 appeared and contested the complaint. In its  written reply before the Ld. Lower Commission, it   took up the plea that provisions of Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act,2003 are strictly followed at  the bus terminal, administrative office and depots of the  Chandigarh Transport Undertaking . Accordingly  ‘No Smoking’ signage’s’ in  buses, important places in all offices/Depots and ISBT have been installed  and there is no direct or indirect advertisement and sale of tobacco products in any of  the premises of respondent No.1. Smoking and use of Tobacco is totally prohibited in CTU buses under Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, (COPTA) 2003. It was further stated that the bus fare was charged from complainant as per fare table issued by the office (Annexure-1) and there was no overcharging. It was pleaded that there was neither any deficiency in service  on its part nor any harassment  was caused by it.

 4.             Opposite Party No.2/Respondent No.2 in its  written reply before the Ld. Lower Commission stated that a letter was written to  Opposite Party No.1/ respondent No.1 to depute his concerned person to collect the challan book from the office of Nodal Officer, State Tobacco Control Cell, GMSH, Sector-16, Chandigarh for the compliance of provisions of Section 4 of the Cigarettes of Trade and Commerce, Production Supply and Distribution Act, 2003 through the officers/officials mentioned in Schedule-III on any working day from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Monday to Friday) and  same is annexed as Annexure R/2/1. It was further stated  that if any person was found smoking during journey in the  bus bearing  No.CH01-G1-7551, then it was the duty of Bus Conductor to issue challan, who was authorised to do so as per the Act.  It was further stated that the allegations levelled by the complainant are  of the nature of Public Interest Litigation, and as such, consumer complaint is not maintainable. It was pleaded that no services of the answering respondent were hired at any stage, as such complainant is not a consumer qua respondent No.2 and prayed that complaint against it be dismissed.   

 5.                       On appraisal of the pleadings, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the Complaint of  the  Complainant, being   meritless,   by observing that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

6.            Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/complainant.

7.                       We have heard the appellant appearing in person, Sh.Rajinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the respondents,  and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

8.                 The core question that falls for consideration before us, is as to whether, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

9.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed  for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

10.                   The Ld. Lower Commission while dismissing the complaint, observed as under ;

.                     “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.

           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 116 km, & rate of fare is Rs.0.85 per km, fare for which works out to be Rs.98.60. Toll tax as per table from 111 km to 130 km is Rs.9/- so total fare works out to be Rs.107.80/- which is to be rounded nearest to Rs.110/-. Hence we are of the view that the correct fare has been charged by the OP's.

        Regarding 2nd point it is observed that the complainant himself has mentioned in para 3 of the complaint that no person was found smoking in the bus, hence there was no question of challaning any person in the bus by the bus conductor. Moreover complainant has alleged that in the premises of Kalayat & Hisar bus stand, 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.”

11.                  The appellant while referring to judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Balbir Singh, Civil Appeal No.7173 of 2002 decided on 17.3.2004 and Luknow Development Authority Vs M. K.Gupta decided on 5.11.1993, contended that he was required to be compensated for the sufferance undergone by him due to indirect smoking by the unknown smokers at the premises of Kalayat and Hissar Bus Stand.  He further contended that  every citizen is entitled to breath in pure air but due to indirect smoking, during journey, he felt problem, uneasiness due to inaction on the part of the respondents.  He further contended that he has been overcharged by respondent No.1 as he was charged Rs.110/- against bus fare of Rs.105/- from Kaithal to Hissar.

12.                      It is own case of the appellant that he suffered problem due to indirect smoking during halt/stoppage of bus in the bus stand premises at Kalayat and after  culminating  of journey at Hissar Bus stand premises. No doubt,  Bus Conductor was the authorized person to issue challan for smoking in the bus under the provisions of the Cigarettes & Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production Supply and Distribution) Act,2003, but  admittedly there was no direct smoking by any person, as such, Bus Conductor was not supposed to issue challan for any indirect smoking. The appellant must have suffered  health problem due to indirect smoking but for that sufferance, as held by the Ld. Lower Commission, the respondents cannot be held liable as  the bus stand premises at Kalayat and Hissar are not under their control.  We did feel that use of tobacco products in public places is hazardous even for passerby people and we appreciate the instinct of  the consumer who has raised such public interest issue but the Consumer Fora is not the appropriate Forum to curb the menace of use of tobacco products/smoking etc. at public places.

13.                  The Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents clarified that as per Haryana Govt. Notification dated 30.6.2016 (Annexure R-I) the bus fare fixed is 00.85paise per kilometer  in the State of Haryana and according to this notification, bus fare  from Kaithal to Hissar works out to be Rs.98.60.  Further as per order dated 15.12.2016(Annexure R-2), passed by the Transport Department, Govt. of Haryana, toll road user charges applicable to passengers of Haryana Roadways Buses for more than 15 Km travel were revised, vide which it ordered that the charges shall be recovered from the passengers. As the appellant has travelled 116 Km, therefore, a sum of Rs.9/- was charged in addition to Rs.98.60 paise, totaling Rs.107.60p. Further as per order dated 6.7.2017 (Annexure R-3) of Transport Department, Govt. of Haryana, the chargeable bus fare from the passengers is considered to be chargeable in the rounded off to the next 5 rupees . Accordingly the appellant was  rightly charged Rs.110/-. On the other hand,  the appellant could not  show anything contrary which may persuade us to interfere in the order, under challenge.

 14.                     In view of the above discussion, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld..

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

16.                       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

                                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                      (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

                                                                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                                    Sd/-    

                                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

 MEMBER

                                                                                                         Sd/-

(RAJESH K.ARYA)

MEMBER

                                                                                                                        Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

Pronounced

22.12.2022

Js

(RAJESH K.ARYA)

MEMBER

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER