Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/666/2016

Ashok Kumar Prajapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

K.L.SainiAdv

17 May 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	666 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	26.8.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	17.5.2017

 

 

 

 

 

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

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

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

 

2.  General Manager, Haryana State Roadways,    Bhiwani 127021.

 

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

 

4.  Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Bhiwani 127021.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. K.L. Saini, Adv.  

 

For OP No.1&2           :     Sh. Jagdish Kumar, authorized agent for                           OPs No.1&2.

 

For OP No.3             :     Ex-parte

 

For OP No.4             :     Sh. Mool Chand, authorized agent.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

     As per the case, the complainant was traveling in the Haryana State Transport Bhiwani Bus after paying Rs.60/- towards ticket. During the journey the driver of the said bus started 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 only on the asking of the complainant that the driver, after smoking the entire ‘beedi’ threw the residue.  The complainant raised the issue with the conductor who did not cooperate with the complainant rather threatened him.  Thereafter the complainant contacted on helpline No.01664-242230 who further directed him to contact another number. Thereafter the complainant contacted on 01664-242134 who further directed the complainant to contact on 9416181819. On contacting the given number complainant was asked to give complaint in writing.  After completing the journey the complainant sent written complaint to the OPs on 27.5.2016 as also Legal Notice dated 2.7.2016 but all in vain.   It is pleaded that as per information received under RTI it has come to the notice of the complainant that the    OP No.2 as a formality sake has fined his employee for smoking but no concrete steps were taken for stopping such smoking in future neither any compensation was offered. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.     Opposite Parties No.1&2 in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the driver had lightened the ‘beedi’ while  driving the bus but on interruption of the complainant he immediately threw it.  On receiving complaint of the complainant the driver of the bus was fined with Rs.100/-  and was charge sheeted u/R-8 and the departmental enquiry against the driver is still pending. It is pleaded that for prevention of smoking on public places/bus stands/govt. offices, Nodal officer is deputed and the Nodal Officer from time to time got unannounced inspection of the places public places/bus stands and fined the offenders. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4.     OP No.4 in its reply stated that no cause of action has arisen against the answering OP and as such the complaint is not maintainable against it. It is pleaded that as per Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production Supply and Distribution) Act (COTPA) 2003 the Health Department is to sensitize the other departments regarding various provisions of this Act and to educate about the bad effects of the tobacco products.  As per Rule III of the said Act the rules mainly defines the persons (as per area) responsible to enforce the provisions of the Act and to lodge complaint or to collect the fine from the person responsible for the violation of this Act and in the instant case the Transport Department is the authority to lodge complaint to collect fine for the violation, if any.  The answering OP has got no powers to collect the fine or to file case in other than the area defined under this Act.  Pleading no deficiency on its part it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed against the answering OP.
5.     Contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record.
7.     No affidavit of the conductor or the driver of the bus has been filed by the OPs No.1&2 to deny the allegations of the complainant that while he was travelling in the bus, the driver was smoking in the bus. The reply filed by the OPs No.1&2 clearly proves that the departmental action has been taken against the driver and he has been fined with Rs.100/- for his wrongful act. Also submitted that a departmental enquiry is also pending against him. Thus the allegations of the complainant stand corroborated by the departmental action taken by the OPs No.1&2 against the driver. Since the driver was smoking in the bus, an act which is dangerous to the health of the passengers, so his conduct amounts to deficiency in service. As the driver was an employee of the OPs No.1&2, so there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 
8.     No doubt it is argued by the OPs No.1&2 that suitable action has been taken against the driver 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.  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, the complainant cannot be denied his remedy before the Consumer Forum.  Since it is proved that the OPs NO.1&2 were deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant therefore, the present complaint deserves to succeed. During the course of arguments it is submitted on behalf of OP No.1&2 that the guilty person i.e. the driver in question has been transferred to some other place
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed. The OPs  No.1&2 are directed to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.500/- to the complainant for the inconvenience suffered by the complainant for the deficiency in service of OPs No.1&2. However, the complaint qua OPs No.3&4 fails and accordingly the same is dismissed qua them.
10.     This order be complied with by the OPs No.1&2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the awarded amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.
11.     The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

17.5.2017

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER