Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/576/2017

Ashok Kumar Prajapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director General, Haryana State Transport - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

31 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	576 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	28.04.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	31.10.2017

 

 

 

 

Ashok Kumar Parjapat R/o Village  Mohalla, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar (Haryana) 125042.

                               …..Complainants

Versus

1]  Director, Haryana State Roadways, 30   Bays     Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017.

2]  Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Haryana, New Secretariat, opposite Fire     station, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017.

                      ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER

                               

Argued by :    

Complainant in person.

Sh.Sarbjit Singh, authorised agent of OP No.1

Ms.Rajpal Sekhon, authorised agent of OP No.2

 

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant was traveling in the Haryana State Transport, Bhiwani Depot Bus, after paying Rs.60/- towards ticket, for the route from Ambala to Kaithal. During the journey, one passenger of the bus started smoking and when he was asked to stop smoking, he told to first stop the Driver of the bus from smoking. It is averred that the driver of the said bus was also smoking in the bus owing to which the complainant was not feeling comfortable and he requested the driver to stop smoking as it is banned in the public places and transport. However, the Driver misbehaved with him and threw the ‘Beedi’ only after completely smoking it. The complainant raised the issue with the conductor who did not cooperate with him and rather threatened him.  It is also averred that the Conductor of the bus also slapped him.  Thereafter the complainant made a complaint in this regard with the OPs, who after conducting an enquiry, imposed a fine of Rs.50/- only.  It is averred that due to the act of driver of the Opposite parties, the complainant had to suffer a lot and the driver has been imposed with a fine of Rs.50/- only which is not justified.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       Opposite Parties No.1 has filed reply stating that as per the fact supplied by the Conductor of the bus, he did not saw the driver of the bus smoking the Bidi while driving the bus, but on interruption/asking of the complainant regarding his smoking he asked immediately the driver of the bus not to smoke Bidi while driving.  It is stated that on the complaint of the complainant, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the concerned driver, and the driver was fined with Rs.50/- in the absence of any proof of smoking and thereafter, the enquiry filed.  It is also stated that as per notification dated 19.5.2013 Rule 21J the maximum fine is Rs.200/-. Denying other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.   

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       The complainant Ashok Kumar Prajapat while travelling in Haryana Roadways Bus on 23.1.2016 noticed one passenger smoking while bus was on its way from Ambala to Kaithal, Haryana.  The complainant asked the passenger to put off the Cigarette, but he misbehaved with complainant on plea that first of all he should ask the Driver of the Bus to stop smoking in the Bus.  The complainant is stated to be highly allergic to the smoking and tobacco products.  He felt suffocated in the journey and on protest he was misbehaved and manhandled too by the conductor of the Bus. 

6]       It is obviously a matter of highhandedness on the part of the Transport Officials i.e. Driver & Conductor.  Instead of stopping the passengers from smoking in the Bus, they themselves indulged in such un-civic activities despite clear mandate from the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the use of Cigarette in public place.

 

7]       The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India In Murli S.Deora Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 316 of 1999, decided on 02.11.2001 has observed as under:-

Fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India, inter alia, provides that none shall be deprived of his life without due process of law. Then - why a non-smoker should be afflicted by various diseases including lung cancer or of heart, only because he is required to go to public places? Is it not indirectly depriving of his life without any process of law? The answer is obviously - 'yes'. Undisputedly, smoking is injurious to health and may affect the health of smokers but there is no reason that health of passive smokers should also be injuriously affected. In any case, there is no reason to compel non-smokers to be helpless victims of air pollution.

The statement of objects and reason of (The) Cigarettes (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1975, inter alia, provides, "Smoking of cigarettes is a harmful habit and, in course of time, can lead to grave health hazards. Researches carried out in various parts of the world have confirmed that there is a relationship between smoking of cigarettes and lung cancer, chronic bronchitis; certain diseases of the heart and arteries; cancer of bladder, prostrate, mouth pharynx and oesophagus; peptic ulcer etc., are also reported to be among the ill- effects of cigarette smoking."

Similarly, the statement of objects and reasons of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Bill, 2001, pro-vides, "Tobacco is universally regarded as one of the major public health hazards and is responsible directly or indirectly for an estimated eight lakh deaths annually in the country. It has also been found that treatment of tobacco related diseases and the loss of productivity caused therein cost the country almost Rs.13,500 crores annually, which more than offsets all the benefits accruing in the form of revenue and employment generated by tobacco industry".

In this view of the matter, when this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India came for orders on 31st August, 2001, we have passed order for implementing 1975 Act. At that time of hearing, learned Attorney General as well as counsel for the parties submitted that considering harmful effect of smoking, smoking in public places is required to be prohibited. On this submission, we sought response of the Central Government. As no affidavit was filed during the stipulated time by the Central Government, on 28th September, 2001, we were required to adjourn the matter. Today also, when the matter came up for hearing no response is filed on behalf of the Central Government. However, learned Attorney General with all emphasis at his command submitted that appropriate order banning smoking in public places be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted to the aforesaid effect. Counsel appearing for other respondents also supported the same.

In the petition, it is pointed out that tobacco smoking contains harmful contents including nicotine, tar, potential carcinogens, carbon monoxide, irritants, asphyxiates and smoke particles which are the cause of many diseases including the cancer. It is alleged that three million people die every year as a result of illness related to the use of tobacco products of which one million people belong to developing countries like India. The World Health Organisation is stated to have estimated that tobacco related deaths can rise to a whopping seven million per year. According to this organisation, in the last half century in the developing countries alone smoking has killed more than sixty million people. Tobacco smoking also adds to the air pollution. Besides cancer, tobacco smoking is responsible for various other fatal diseases to the mankind.

It is further submitted that statutory provisions are being made for prohibiting smoking in public places and the Bill introduced in the Parliament is pending consideration before a Select Committee. The State of Rajasthan has claimed to have passed Act No. 14 of 2000 to provide for prohibition of smoking in place of public work or use and in public service vehicles for that State. It is stated that in Delhi also there is prohibition of smoking in public places.

Learned Attorney General for India submits and all the counsel appearing for the other parties agree that considering the adverse effect of smoking in public places, it would be in the interests of the citizens to prohibit the smoking in public places till the statutory provision is made and implemented by the legislative enactment. The persons not indulging in smoking cannot be compelled to or subjected to passive smoking on account of acts of the smokers.

Realising the gravity of the situation and considering the adverse effect of smoking on smokers and passive smokers, we direct and prohibit smoking in public places and issue directions to the Union of India, State Governments as well as the Union Territories to take effective steps to ensure prohibiting smoking in public places, namely :

1. Auditoriums

2. Hospital Buidings

3. Health Institutions

4. Educational Institutions

5. Libraries

6. Court Buildings

7. Public Office

8. Public Conveyances, including Railways.

Learned Attorney General for India assured the court that Union of India shall take necessary effective steps to give wide publicity to this order by electronic as well as print media to make the general public aware of this order of prohibition of smoking.

We further direct the Registrar General to intimate the State Governments Union Territories as well as the Commissioners of Police as mentioned in our orders dated 31st August, 2001 and 28th September, 2001 of this Court with directions for submission of their compliance report in this Court within five weeks from today. Union of India shall also file its response at the earliest.

 

8]       The Hon’ble Supreme Court with above observations, considering the harmful effect of smoking, prohibited smoking in public places and issued directions to the Union of India, State Governments as well as Union Territories to have effective steps to ensure prohibiting smoking in public places including public conveyances.

 

9]       The State of Haryana especially the Haryana Roadways Authorities seems to have little respect for the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is surprising to note from the submissions made by the Haryana Roadways in its reply to the complainant that on receiving a complaint from the complainant, the Driver of the Bus was merely fined with Rs.50/-. The Haryana Roadways Authorities took no proper departmental action against the culprit.  The Driver of the Bus in question seems to have least respect for law as well as comfort of the passengers travelling in the Bus.

 

10]      The facts & circumstances of the case warrants serious strictures against the Haryana Roadways Authorities for not adhering to the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in  Murli S.Deora Vs. Union of India (Supra).  However, in the present facts & circumstances, it will be suffice to issue directions to the General Manager, Haryana Roadway, to take necessary steps and issue directions to all supervisory staff in Haryana Roadways to brief the field staff especially the Drivers & Conductors to behave properly and desist from using tobacco & smoking in public places as well as in their Buses while on Duty.  The Supervisory Staff shall visit and check the Transport Vehicles/Public Buses under their supervision/control to discourage the trend prevailing in the field staff and report such misconduct to the higher authorities for strict action. 

 

11]      The driver of the Bus in question has been punished with fine of Rs.50/-, as such the imposition of any further cost or fine upon the same person/driver for the same fault/act, would amounts to double jeopardy whereby one person cannot be punished twice for the same offence.  Moreover, the complainant has compromised the matter with Conductor of the bus. 

 

12]      Keeping in view the above observations and peculiar facts in the present case, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly to meet the ends of justice.

         Certified copy of this order be forwarded to General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sector 17, Chandigarh as well as to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

31^st October, 2017                 

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER