Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/853/2015

Ashok Kumar Prajapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director, Haryana Roadways - Opp.Party(s)

Krishan Lal

25 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/853/2015
Date of Institution	:	22/12/2015
Date of Decision	:	25/05/2016

 

Ashok Kumar Parjapat, resident of Village Mohla, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, Haryana.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Director, Haryana Roadways, 30 Bays Building, Sector-17, Chandigarh-160017.

2.     Financial Commissioner, Health Department, New Civil Secretariat, Haryana, in front of Fire Brigade, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3.     General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind, Haryana 126102. 

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. K.L. Saini, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for OPs alongwith Sh. Pawan Vir, ADA and Sh. Anil Kumar, Clerk, Haryana Roadways, Jind.

                       

                 

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Ashok Kumar, complainant has brought this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), with regard to harassment suffered by him at the time of travelling in the Haryana Roadways bus.

                On 16.1.2015, the complainant boarded the Haryana Roadways Bus registration No.HR 56A 7441 at 8:00 a.m. from Pehowa for Dera Bassi. He got the ticket of Rs.70/- for the said journey and occupied seat No.4, behind the driver.  The driver started smoking and the complainant asked him to stop smoking.  On the next stop at Ismailabad when the passengers were getting down and boarding the bus, the driver again started smoking due to which the bus was full of smoke. It was only on the asking of the complainant that the driver, after smoking the entire ‘beedi’, threw the residue. On the next stop at Ambala City, before the bus stand and bridge, there was a traffic jam and again the driver started smoking the ‘beedi’.  On the objection of the complainant, the driver alighted from the bus after stopping it and started smoking outside the bus.  Some other passengers also started smoking and due to that the bus was full of smoke. The driver and conductor insulted the complainant. The complainant contacted the General Manager, Pehowa Ambala and Private Secretary, Ismailabad on mobile phone and asked to take appropriate action. The complainant dis-satisfied with the services provided to him while travelling in the Haryana Roadways bus has brought this consumer complaint claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.4.00 lakhs for deficiency in service, physical pain and mental pain and Rs.21,000/- as counsel fee and refund of extra charge.

2.         Upon receiving notice of the complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statement stating that departmental action was initiated against the driver and conductor of the bus. The complainant was called during the proceedings for making a statement, but, he did not turn up in spite of various notices. Even then, keeping in view the gravity of offence of smoking by the driver while driving the bus and collecting Rs.2 excess than the actual fare by the conductor, they were suitably punished by the OPs by imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- each vide order dated 15.4.2015. It is further alleged that various letters had already been issued for not smoking in the premises of offices, workshop and all the bus stands in Haryana state. The Director General, Health Services, Haryana had also issued instructions in this regard vide letter dated 3.12.2015.  Hence, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant and learned Govt. Pleader for the OPs.
5.         The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that from the reply of the OPs it is proved that the driver of the Haryana Roadways bus was smoking at the time the complainant was travelling in the same.  Even the conductor charged Rs.2/- extra from the complainant as the fare was Rs.68/-, but, he charged Rs.70/- and the above acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service.
6.         No affidavit of the conductor or the driver of the bus has been filed by the OPs to deny the allegations of the complainant that while he was travelling in the bus, the driver was smoking in the bus and the conductor charged Rs.2/- extra from him as fare. The reply filed by the OPs clearly proves that the departmental action was taken against the driver and the conductor of the bus and they have been punished to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Thus the allegations of the complainant stand corroborated by the departmental action taken by the OPs against the driver and conductor. Since the conductor charged Rs.2/- extra from the complainant and the driver was smoking in the bus, which was dangerous to the health of the passengers, so their conduct amounts to deficiency in service. As the driver and the conductor were the employees of the OPs, so there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 
7.         No doubt it is argued by the OPs that suitable action has been taken against the driver and conductor in the departmental proceedings, therefore, no action is required to be taken by this Forum, but, we are of the view that the same was an independent remedy which the department was to initiate against the guilty driver and the conductor.  The complainant has his own remedy under the Consumer Protection Act before this Forum and even if the departmental action has been taken against the driver and the conductor, the complainant cannot be denied his remedy before the Consumer Forum.  Since it is proved that the OPs were deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and also indulged in unfair trade practice, therefore, the present complaint deserves to succeed.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

(i)     To refund Rs.2/- to the complainant being the amount of extra fare charged from him;

(ii)    To pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

(iii)   To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. 

9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
25/05/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	Member	President