Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/36/2024

ASHOK KUMAR PRAJAPAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIRECTORATE, HARYANA ROADWAYS, CHANDIGARH - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant(In person)

09 Aug 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	36 of 2024
Date of Institution	24.01.2024
Date of Decision	09.08.2024

Ashok Kumar Prajapat, R/o Village Mohla, District Hisar, Haryana - 125042.

.…..Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

Director, Haryana State Transport, Second Floor, 30 Bays Building,
Sector -17, Chandigarh-160017, through Directorate (through the concerned operators – drivers, conductors, Tobacco Regional Officers and General Managers).

                                                            .…..Respondent/Opposite Party.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by:  Sh. Ashok Kumar Prajapat, Appellant (on V.C).

                  Sh. Amanpreet Singh Virk, Govt. Pleader for the    

                    respondent.

                  

                       

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 24.11.2023, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2021.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29.07.2019, the appellant/complainant had travelled from Baldev Nagar to Chandigarh in Haryana State Transport, Rewari bus and he was charged Rs.60/- as tickets cost (Annexure C-1). During this trip, he felt the problem of smoke after just travelling a short distance. When he searched for a smoker, he found that the bus driver was smoking while sitting on his seat. He felt extremely suffocated, uncomfortable and insecure due to secondhand smoke. He felt problem of smoking, which as per him, was against the provisions of COTPA 2003 and smoking material was also being sold. On being resisted, in order to avoid quarrel, he did not raise much protest. As per him, he was also overcharged bus fare by Rs.5/-. He took up the matter with the opposite party but of no avail.
3. The appellant withdrew the consumer complaint against OP No.1, which was ordered to be dismissed as such vide order dated 30.08.2023 by the District Commission.
4.  The respondent/Opposite Party No.2 contested the consumer complaint by pleading that both the driver and conductor were punished as a fine of Rs.200/- was imposed on the driver for smoking (Ex.R-1) and a fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed on the conductor for sitting on the first seat (Ex.R-2). It was their stand that now another punishment could not be given because the fine was imposed only on the complaint of the appellant/complainant. It was further stated that according to the notification and fare list of Haryana Government, the fare from Baldev Nagar Ambala to Chandigarh is only Rs.60/- and extra charges of Rs.5/- was not charged from the appellant/complainant.   
5. In the rejoinder, the complainant reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and repudiated those as in the written statement.
6. The parties led evidence in support of their case.
7. After hearing the parties and going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Commission, dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant, as stated above.
8. We have heard the appellant/complainant as well as the Govt. Pleader for the respondent, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the parties and the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. The grievance of the appellant/complainant is twofold, firstly, he was overcharged by Rs.5/- for the journey undertaken by him from Baldev Nagar to Chandigarh in Haryana State Transport, Rewari bus and secondly, the driver of the said bus was smoking and the conductor was sitting on the first seat. So far as the first grievance with regard to overcharging of bus fare is concerned, we do not find any overcharging on the part of the respondent/complainant as the bus fare of Rs.60/- was rightly charged by the respondent/opposite party for the journey undertaken by him from Baldev Nagar to Chandigarh in Haryana State Transport, Rewari bus as per the revised fare, Exhibit R-3, wherein the fare from Baldev Nagar to Chandigarh has been mentioned as Rs.60/-.
11. So far as the second limb of argument made by the appellant/complainant that the driver of the said bus was smoking and the conductor was sitting on the first seat, as per admitted position on record, the said driver and the conductor had been fined for the said default on their part to the extent of Rs.200/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively. Thus, it is proved on record that the appellant/complainant faced problem, inconvenience and suffocation due to the said act of smoking by the bus driver and the act of sitting of the conductor on the first seat of the bus was a kind of inconvenience to the passengers. However, the District Commission, while accepting the plea of the respondent/opposite party that both were fined and thus, no further action is required in the matter, miserably failed to understand the level of mental agony and harassment, which the appellant/complainant suffered due to this deficiency in service on the part of the driver and the conductor. Though they were made party to the complaint but the fact of smoking etc. by them could not be ignored, which was the prime duty of the Department – respondent/complainant to look into that such kind of things may not happen in bus, which puts the passengers into difficult situation and suffocated environment. We all know very well that passive smoking, also known as secondhand smoke, is highly injurious to health. It involves the involuntary inhalation of smoke by non-smokers who are near to active smokers. The harmful effects of passive smoking have been well-documented and it is recognized as a significant public health issue. Exposure to secondhand smoke can lead to a variety of health problems including respiratory infections, heart disease and lung cancer. The risk is particularly high in enclosed spaces such as buses, where the smoke can concentrate and linger, making it especially dangerous for passengers. Thus, in the confined environment of a bus, passive smoking becomes even more harmful. Buses are typically crowded, enclosed spaces with limited ventilation, which means that smoke can quickly accumulate and affect all passengers, regardless of where they are seated. This concentrated exposure increases the likelihood of adverse health effects. Passengers, including children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions, are particularly vulnerable. Even short-term exposure can trigger asthma attacks, worsen existing respiratory issues, and contribute to the development of cardiovascular diseases. Furthermore, allowing smoking in buses is not only detrimental to health but also against the principles set forth by the The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 or COTPA, 2003 and various public health policies designed to protect individuals from the dangers of secondhand smoke. This finds expression in prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008. Many countries have enacted strict regulations to prohibit smoking in public transportation to safeguard the health of all passengers. These regulations are in place to ensure a safe and healthy environment for everyone, free from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. The prohibition of smoking in public transportation is part of a broader effort to reduce the prevalence of smoking-related illnesses and promote public health. By enforcing these regulations, authorities aim to minimize the exposure of non-smokers to the dangers of secondhand smoke and encourage a healthier lifestyle. Thus, passive smoking poses significant health risks, especially in the confined spaces of a bus. It is imperative to adhere to regulations that prohibit smoking in public transportation to protect the health and well-being of all passengers. Public awareness campaigns and stringent enforcement of no-smoking policies in buses and other forms of public transportation are essential steps in this direction, which, in our considered opinion, the respondent/opposite party is failing in.
12. It may be stated here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in shaping policies regarding the prohibition of smoking in public places. One of the landmark judgments in this context is the 2001 ruling in the case of Murli S. Deora vs Union of India & Ors. This case is significant as it addressed the harmful effects of passive smoking and the need to protect non-smokers from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Union of India, State Governments, and Union Territories to prohibit smoking in public places likeHospitals and health care institutions, Educational institutions, Public offices, Public transport, Libraries, auditoriums, court buildings and other public places. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized the right of non-smokers to a smoke-free environment, reinforcing that their health should not be compromised by the actions of smokers. It further directed the Central and State governments to take necessary measures to implement and enforce the prohibition of smoking in public places, which included the formulation of regulations and policies to ensure compliance with the directives. The Hon’ble Apex Court further recognized the adverse health impacts of passive smoking and emphasized the responsibility of the government to protect public health. However, in its defence, the respondent/opposite party has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled ‘Ashok Kumar Prajapat Versus Commissioner, Haryana Roadways & 2 Ors.’ Revision Petititon No.224 of 2023 alongwith other two Revision Petitions bearing No.225 of 2023 and 694 of 2023 decided  on 22.03.2024, whereby the said orders passed by Fora below dismissing the complaints were upheld and the revision petitions were dismissed. We have minutely gone through the facts of the said judgment of Hon’ble National Commission. In those cases, the incident of smoking occurred outside the bus at a public place, whereas, in the instant case, it had happened inside the bus. Thus, the facts of those cases being distinguishable, the same are of no help to the respondent/opposite party.
13.  Thus, in our considered view, respondent/opposite party is very much deficient and defaulter as it has failed to ensure that its employees i.e. drivers or conductors would not smoke in bus. Imposing a petty fine on them would not set the problem at rest rather it is very easy, you first smoke in bus and then pay small fine subsequent, if caught. The respondent/opposite party has also failed to completely adhere to the provisions of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply, and Distribution) Act, 2003, which bans smoking in public places, as aforesaid, to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects of passive smoking. The Act also empowers various authorities and designated government officials, to enforce its provisions. They are authorized to inspect, seize, and take action against violations of the Act. In view of above, in our considered view, the respondent/opposite party has miserably failed to ensure implementation of its own policies and regulations, which bars smoking in public places and public transports etc. and also failed to ensure compliance of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court and the provisions of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply, and Distribution) Act, 2003. Thus, for inconvenience, mental agony and harassment, caused to the appellant/complainant on account of passive smoking in the bus, the respondent/opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the appellant/complainant.
14. We further observe that the respondent – opposite party should take effective and stern measures to ensure that smoking is completely prohibited within all buses and bus stand complexes. Such a directive should be issued by the respondent – opposite party in strict adherence to the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), which mandates the prohibition of smoking in public places to protect public health and welfare. To achieve this, the transport department is required to enforce a zero-tolerance policy towards smoking on all buses and within the premises of bus stands. This includes prominently displaying no-smoking signs, conducting regular checks to ensure compliance and taking immediate action against violators. The department must also engage in awareness campaigns to educate passengers and staff about the harmful effects of smoking and the legal consequences of violating the Copta Act. Furthermore, transport officials and bus stand authorities should collaborate with local law enforcement agencies to ensure that these measures are rigorously enforced. Any breach of these regulations should be dealt with severely. The respondent – opposite party should ensure a healthy and smoke-free environment for all commuters, ensuring that public transportation spaces are safe and conducive to the well-being of all citizens.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent/opposite party is directed to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/complainant for mental agony and physical harassment and costs of litigation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.5,000/- shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization.
16. We further direct the respondent – opposite party to take effective and stern measures to ensure that smoking is completely prohibited within all buses and bus stand complexes, as observed by us in Para 14 above.
17. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

09.08.2024

                                     [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                               

 [RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad

                            

S