JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER The petitioner / complainant travelled in a bus owned by the respondents, from kaithal to Ambala on 06.3.2017. His allegation is that the driver of the bus smoked three times during the course of the journey and did not stop, despite the request made to him. The complainant claimed to have felt uneasy and suffocated due to smoking in the bus. The complaint made by him to the General Manager of Haryana State Roadways did not result in any action against the bus driver. This is also his case that the excess fare to the extent of Rs.2/- was charged from him. 2. The complaint was resisted by the respondents, who inter-alia stated in the reply that smoking in public places was prohibited under Section 4 of the Cigarette and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production Supply & Distribution), Act, 2003, except in special smoking zone and the said Act provides for imposition of fine for smoking in public places. However, the said reply did not respond to the allegation that excess fare had been charged from the complainant. 3. Being aggrieved, the complainant / petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The District Forum, vide its order dated 25.01.2018, noted that the driver who smoked in the bus had been fined and observed that to meet the ends of justice and fair play, the petitioner be allowed to sit in the District Removal of Grievances Committee as well as the District Tobacco Control Cell to enable him to highlight the problems of smoking in public places. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 17.7.2018, noted that the Government was taking action against those who were violating the provisions of the COPTA Act and directed that an invitation be sent to the petitioner / complainant to sit in each and every meeting of District Level Committee for eradication of smoking and Tobacco under the COPTA Act. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 5. When this petition came up for hearing on 29.11.2018, it was noted that the complainant had not impleaded the bus driver, who allegedly smoked in the bus, as a party to the consumer complaint. In the absence of impleadment of the bus driver, it would not be fair and reasonable to take a view on the allegation made by the complainant against him. Therefore, a limited notice was issued to the respondents to show cause why the compensation be not awarded to the complainant for the respondents charging Rs.70/- as fare from him for travelling between Kaithal to Ambala on 06.3.2017. 6. No-one appeared for the respondents on the last date of hearing despite service of notice on them. No-one is present for the respondents today. I have therefore, heard the complainant / petitioner in person. 7. According to the complainant / petitioner, the prescribed fare for travel from Kaithal to Ambala was Rs.68/- but he was charged Rs.70/- by not refunding the balance amount of Rs.2/- to him. Though the excess amount charged from the complainant / petitioner was a petty amount, the conduct of the concerned employee of the respondents in charging more than the prescribed fare cannot be condoned. Charging more than the prescribed fare from a consumer constitutes deficiency in service rendered to him and therefore, he is entitled to appropriate compensation for the said deficiency in the service rendered to him. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents are directed to pay a token amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation to the petitioner / complainant within six weeks from today. The respondents shall be entitled, if they so decide, to recover the aforesaid amount from the concerned official. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. | 
