Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/308/2017

Ashok Kumar Parjapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director, Haryana State Roadways - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Jan 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	308 of 2017
Date of Institution	12.12.2017
Date of Decision	04.01.2018

 

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

                   ....Appellant/Complainant

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.

                                ....Respondents/Opposite Parties 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   SH. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Ashok Kumar Prajapat, appellant in person.

                                                   

                  

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 31.10.2017, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it disposed of the complaint in the following manner:-

“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.”

2.    The facts in brief, are that, 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. It was stated that 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 was further stated 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. It was further stated that the Driver misbehaved with him and threw the ‘Beedi’ only after completely smoking it. It was further stated that the complainant raised the issue with the conductor, who did not cooperate with him, and rather threatened him and also the Conductor of the bus slapped him.  It was further stated that subsequently, the complainant made a complaint in this regard with the Opposite Parties, who after conducting an enquiry, imposed a fine of Rs.50/- only.  It was further stated 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, and therefore, the complainant, filed the consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only).
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by the Opposite Parties and factual matrix of the case was not controverted. However, it was stated that when interrupted, the culprit driver threw away ‘beedi’ immediately. It was further stated that after Departmental Inquiry, punishment and fine was imposed upon the said driver. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the answering Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The Parties, led evidence, in support of their case.
5.     Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
6.        We have heard the appellant in person, at the preliminary stage and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
7.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the appellant in person, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
8.           The learned Forum in the present case had held that the State of Haryana, especially the Haryana Roadways Authorities seem to have little respect for the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In Murli S.Deora Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 316 of 1999, decided on 02.11.2001 it was observed that smoking in public places especially in public conveyance including railways needs to be prohibited. The Haryana Roadways Authorities in reply to the complaint, simply mentioned that Driver of the bus was fined with Rs.50/- only without taking any proper departmental action against the driver. The learned Forum further held that, going by the facts and circumstances of the case, Haryana Roadways Authorities need to be served with serious strictures, for not adhering to the orders, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the above case. Accordingly, the Forum issued 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 and smoking in public places as well in their buses while on duty. Moreover, in this case, the Driver has been fined with Rs.50/-, as per rules of the Haryana Roadways Authorities and the complainant has compromised the matter with the Conductor of the bus. Accordingly, we feel that there arises no occasion to further compensate the complainant, in any manner, as Haryana Roadways Authorities is a government institution, and necessary strictures have already been forwarded by way of judgment passed by the learned Forum. Therefore, the said appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage.
9.    No other point, was urged, by the appellant in person.
10.     In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the
    point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
11.    For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
12. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

 

Pronounced.

04.01.2018

 

 

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                           [DEV RAJ]

PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                                  

 

 

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                           [PADMA PANDEY]

                                                                      MEMBER

GP

 

 

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.308 of 2017)

(Ashok Kumar Prajapat Vs. Haryana State Roadways & anr.)

 

Argued by:

Sh. Ashok Kumar Prajapat, appellant in person.

 

Dated the 4^th day of January, 2018

 

ORDER

 

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, has been dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost.

 

 

      

                   Sd/-                                    Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) PRESIDING MEMBER	(PADMA PANDEY)                     MEMBER

 

GP