Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/253/2021

Ashok Kumar Prajapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

04 Jun 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	253/2021
Date of Institution	:	15.04.2021
Date of Decision	:	04.06.2021

 

                                       

                       

 

 

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

                               …..Complainant

Versus

1]     Director, Haryana State Roadways, 30  Bays Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017 through its Concerned Conductor/Responsible (Manager, Bus Driver and Regional Officer of the Tobacco)

2]     Finance Commissioner, Health Department, Haryana, New Secretariat, Opposite Fire     Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017.

…. Opposite Parties  

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
		SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Complainant in person.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  on 01.07.2019 he travelled from Jind to Kaithal in a Haryana Roadways Bus after paying Rs.55/- towards its ticket fare. The complainant is stated to be highly allergic to the smoking and tobacco products.  It has been averred that the driver of the said bus smoked in the bus after stopping the bus at Patiala Chowk, owing to which he was not feeling comfortable and he requested the driver to stop smoking as it is banned in the public places and transport and on his protest, the driver had stopped smoking. The conductor of the Bus has also assured that he would not allow the driver to smoke in the bus in future also. Thereafter the complainant made a complaint in this regard with the OPs, who after conducting an enquiry, imposed a fine of Rs.200/- only upon the driver.  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.200/- only which is not justified. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.     
2.         We have heard the complainant in person at the preliminary stage and have gone through the documents on record.
3.         The complainant Ashok Kumar Prajapat while travelling in Haryana Roadways Bus from Jind to Kaithal on 01.07.2019 noticed the driver of the bus was smoking after stopping the bus at Patiala Chowk.  The complainant is stated to be highly allergic to the smoking and tobacco products.  He felt suffocated in the journey and on protest though the driver of the bus stopped smoking only. 
4.         It is obvious that 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 in Murli S.Deora Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 316 of 1999, decided on 02.11.2001.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court while  considering the harmful effect of smoking, prohibited smoking in public places.
5.         It may be stated here that on receiving the complaint from the complainant, the Driver of the Bus was fined with Rs.200/-.  The driver of the Bus in question has already been punished with fine of Rs.200/-, 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. 
6.         It is an established fact that Smoking is injurious to health, but to eradicate this evil in the Society, the individual themselves have to rise to the occasion through their strong Will Power to leave this evil of Smoking.  By force or compulsion, hundred percent success in uprooting this social evil is impossible.  There is known proverb that “Old Habits Die Hard”.   
7.         Smoking in public places is an offence and the complainant, if ever so noticed such occurrence and is affected by its consequence, then he should bring & take up the matter with law enforcing agencies or other administrative supervisory authorities concerned of the State. The Consumer Commissions have little role to play in eradicating such social evils, as alleged in the present complaint.
8.         Keeping in view the above observations and peculiar facts in the present case, the complaint stands dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
9.         Certified copy of this order be forwarded to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 04/06/2021	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER