Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/80/2023

ASHOK KUMAR PRAJAPAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIRECTOR, CHANDIGARH TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 Aug 2023

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

(ADDITIONAL BENCH)

 

 

Appeal No.	:	80 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	01.05.2023
Date of Decision	:	02.08.2023

 

Ashok Kumar Prajapat resident of Village Mohala, District Hissar (Haryana) 125042.

   ……Appellant/Complainant.

V e r s u s

The Director, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Near Sub Divisional Magistrate (East) Office, Chandigarh - 160002.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party.

BEFORE:    MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                   MR. RAJESH K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                                                         

Argued by:-

 

Sh. Ashok Kumar Prajapat, appellant in person.

Sh. Rajinder Singh, Distt. Attorney for the respondent.

 

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 12.04.2023, dismissing his consumer complaint bearing No.193 of 2022 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission).

1.                 Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant travelled in bus No.CH01GA5367 of the opposite party from Derabassi (Punjab) to Zirakpur (Punjab) by paying Rs.20/- as fare, which was charged by the conductor vide ticket Annexure-1 though the fare for the said journey was Rs.10/- but the opposite party charged Rs.10/- in excess i.e. total Rs.20/- from the complainant. It was further stated that in this manner, the opposite party have been looting the passengers. It was further stated that even as per the notification dated 30.6.2020, Annexure-2, issued by the Punjab Government, the minimum fare of Rs.10/- was fixed, which was to be charged from the passengers for the said journey i.e. from Derabassi to Zirakpur. It was further stated that   thereafter, the complainant made a complaint to the official of the opposite party but till the date of filing the complaint, no response was given by the opposite party. It was further stated that the opposite party has been openly violating the rules by not making complaint box and telephone number available in the bus and in addition to that, has also violated the Central rules.

3]                In the reply filed, the Opposite Party while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that all non-AC buses were plying in tricity with the consent of neighbouring states with flat rate of Rs.20/- per ticket  and it was made mandatory that the buses would run with 50% capacity  only as per order No.13180-HIII(5)/2020/5087 dated 18.5.2020 issued by the office Hon’ble Advisor to Administrator,       U.T-cum-Chairperson, State Executive Committee of State Disaster Management Authority, U.T., Chandigarh due to COVID 19. It was further stated that since minimum fare of Rs.20/- was fixed as per order issued vide Annexure OP-1 dated 18.5.2020, the same was also charged from all the passenger. 

4]                After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record, the District Commission dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

5]                The appellant has assailed the order of the District Commission on the sole ground that as per Order bearing No.Traffic/S-H/CTU/2014/304 dated 26.11.2014, the area of Derra Bassi, Punjab to Zirakpur, Punjab is not included in the Tricity and therefore, the order dated 18.5.2020 Annexure OP-1 could not be made applicable so far as the fare of local buses in this area is concerned. He has further stated that since the place of his journey falls in Punjab, therefore, fare is also to be determined by the Punjab State Government.

6]                On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, the District Attorney submitted that the District Commission, after due appreciation of documentary evidence on record, rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant. He has further submitted that this appeal is also liable to be dismissed.

7]                We have heard the parties and have gone through the impugned order, complete record very carefully.

8]                The sole question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the respondent could charge Rs.20/- as bus fare for the journey undertaken by the appellant from Derabassi (Punjab) to Zirakpur (Punjab) under the garb of order dated 18.5.2020, Annexure OP-1. Our answer to this question is in the negative. Bare perusal of Directive XIX of the said Order dated 18.05.2020 transpires that all non-AC buses were to be operated in tri-city with the consent of the neighouring states and there would be a flat rate of Rs.20 per ticket. Further the buses were to run with 50% capacity only and necessary social distancing norms were to be followed. The appellant has annexed with his appeal a copy of Order bearing No.Traffic/S-H/CTU/2014/304 dated 26.11.2014 issued by The Divisional Manager, CTU & Director Transport, U.T., Chandigarh with regard to the limits of Municipal Corporation, Panchkula, Haryana, Municipal Corporation, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab and Municipal Council Zirakpur, Punjab, for the purpose of considering as Tri-City for the purpose of concessional bus passes and validity area of daily bus passes. No doubt, this document was not placed, by either of the parties, before the District Commission but in appeal before us, the respondent has not challenged its authenticity or validity and raised no objection with regard to this document. Bare perusal of this document transpires that Dera Bassi is not mentioned therein, which clearly means that the respondent could not charge flat rate of Rs.20/- from the appellant for the journey undertaken by him from Derabassi (Punjab) to Zirakpur (Punjab) in view of order dated 18.5.2020, Annexure OP-1. Thus, the appellant has charged extra bus fare of Rs.10/- from the appellant, which amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the complaint by the District Commission was not justified. The appellant is very much held entitled for refund of the extra fare of Rs.10/-, which the respondent had charged. He is also held entitled for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered due to deficiency in rendering service on account of excess charging of bus fare. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set aside.

9]                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent/opposite party is directed as under:-

(i)       to refund an amount of Rs.10/- to the appellant/complainant, which it charged in excess towards bus fare.

(ii)      to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and costs of litigation.

    (iii)     This order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of thereof, failing which, the respondent/opposite party  shall pay  interest @9% p.a. on the entire amounts aforesaid from the date of passing of this order, till realization.

10]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

11]              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

02.08. 2023

 

 [PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

 [RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

 

Ad