STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                               U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                                   (Additional Bench)

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

                                               Versus

1.   Director General, Haryana State Transport, 30 Bays Building,  Sector 17,     Chandigarh – 160017 through General Manager,  Haryana State Transport,     Ambala.
2.   Additional Chief Secretary, Transport Department, Haryana     Secretariat,     Sector 1, Chandigarh 160001

                                                                                …            Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 01.03.2023 passed by          District Consumer

 Disputes Redressal Commission-I,U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.1088/2019.

BEFORE:          MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                         Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

For the appellant       :     Sh.Ashok Kumar Prajapat, appellant in person.    

For the respondents  :      Sh. APS Virk, ADA(Haryana Legal Cell)

 PER PADMA PANDEY,PRESIDING MEMBER

                     This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.03.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”) in CC No.1088/2019, vide which, it allowed the complaint of the complainant/appellant in the following terms;

1.  to refund ₹5/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 27.11.2019 till realization of the same.
2.  to pay an amount of ₹1,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3.  to pay ₹700/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

              This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days 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 this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

2..        Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/appellant that on 29.7.2019, he travelled in the bus of Haryana State Transport from Ismailabad to Ambala City and an amount of Rs.30/- was charged from him by the conductor of the bus as fare for the said journey.  It was alleged that as per the rules, fare of Rs.25/-  was chargeable whereas the conductor of the bus had charged an amount of Rs.30/- i.e. Rs.5/- in excess than the actual fare.     On lodging  a complaint by the complainant before the Higher authority of the OPs,  General Manager, Haryana Transport Department, Ambala was directed to make enquiry about the excess fare charged from the complainant.  The complainant also sought legal information by sending letter and the officials of the OPs had admitted that an amount of Rs.5/- had been charged in excess from the complainant by making it clear that the actual fare was only Rs.25/-.  The complainant was asked to get refund of Rs.5- by visiting their office alongwith ticket but still no action was taken. Alleging  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, a consumer complaint was filed before the  Ld. District Commission seeking directions to display in the buses fare charges table besides seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/-,  litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- and punitive damages of Rs.1.00 Lakhs

 3.              Pursuant to issuance of notice, Opposite Parties appeared before the Ld. Lower Commission and filed a joint reply, inter alia, stating therein that  the OPs had taken cognizance on the complaint of the complainant and the concerned officials were called by the higher authority and the OPs had asked the conductor to pay an amount of Rs.5/-, which was charged in excess to the actual fare. Efforts were made to pacify the complainant by offering regret for the unnecessary inconvenience  suffered by him.  The complainant was also  requested to accept the aforesaid amount of Rs.5/- , but, despite  requests of the OPs, he had not accepted the same, rather filed a consumer complaint against the OPs. Even complainant was requested through  letter dated 11.10.2019 issued by OPs to receive the amount of Rs.5/-, but, despite  that he had not accepted the same.  It is further pleaded that  even the concerned officials were warned to be careful in future and were asked not to repeat such kind of act.  It is further pleaded  that  drivers and conductors of the buses were warned not to commit such type of act with any passenger and in case any complaint is received, departmental action would be taken against the delinquent officials.  It was further pleaded that the complainant is not entitled to any relief and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

  4.                On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record by the complainant, Ld. Lower Commission allowed the complaint partly, as noted in the opening para of this order. 

5.                Dissatisfied with  the relief granted in  the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellant/complainant   for enhancement and granting of relief, as prayed for in the complaint.      

6.                  We have heard  the appellant, Govt. Pleader for the respondents  and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

7.           The  ground taken in the appeal is that though the Learned District Commission has held deficiency in providing service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents/Opposite Parties, yet it awarded meager compensation, due to which there is no improvement in the working of the transport department.  It is  contended that there are clear cut instructions issued by the department that route fare be clearly and correctly displayed in or on the vehicles but still the route fare chart is not displayed.  It is further contended that according to instructions/rules there is provision of complaint book in all the buses but the same is not provided by the conductor as and when the same is demanded.  On the other hand, Govt. pleader contended that it is not possible to display route fare as the  buses are  not plied on one route and are  sent on different routes. He further contended that in terms of the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, directions were issued to all the conductors to charge fixed fare for the specific route and excess charged amount of Rs.5/- was offered to refund to the appellant and for the inconvenience caused to the appellant, he was tried to pacify by offering regret for the same and assured that such incident would not happen in future.  It is further contended that since the order passed by the Ld. District Commission has been complied with, the appeal is not maintainable. 

8.              The Ld. Lower Commission while holding   deficiency in providing service and indulgence into unfair trade practice observed as under;

“There is no force in the contention of the learned Govt. Pleader as the General Manager of the OPs vide letter (Annexure R-1), having been relied upon by the OPs themselves, informed the complainant that the actual fare of the journey from Ismailabad to Ambala is ₹25/- and the conductors of the said depot were asked not to charge fare in excess to ₹25/-.  Not only this, even another document i.e. order dated 10.9.2019 (Annexure R-2), having been relied upon by the OPs, further makes it clear that the conductors and other concerned officials of the Transport were directed by the General Manager, Haryana State Transport, Ambala that only fare from the passengers to the tune of ₹25/- be charged for their journey from Ismailabad to Ambala and in case any driver/conductor was found violating the said direction, departmental enquiry as per rules will be initiated against him.  Thus, one thing is clear on record from the aforesaid documents, which have been relied upon by the OPs, and the admission made by the OPs in their written reply filed in the instant consumer complaint that in fact the conductor of the OPs had charged ₹5/- in excess to the actual fare of ₹25/- by charging an amount of ₹30/- from the complainant.

               So far as the toll tax charges, regarding which the OPs have also placed some documents on file, are concerned, the same are of no help to the OPs as the General Manager of the said depot had specifically directed the conductors of the buses to charge only ₹25/- as fare from Ismailabad to Ambala, especially when it is not the defence of the OPs in their written reply that an amount of ₹5/- was charged from the complainant as toll tax regarding which the OPs have now made reference in their written arguments.  Hence, the complainant has successfully proved deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.

9.           In the prayer clause of the complaint, the complainant had claimed Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs and punitive damages of Rs.1.00 Lakh. However, the Ld. District Commission granted only  Rs.1000/- on account of compensation and Rs.700/- as litigation costs which, keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case,  appears to be inadequate and unjustified. As the appellant has approached the Consumer Fora for a public cause as the commuters were being charged Rs.5/- in excess of the prescribed route fare and this fact stands established on record and  he must have suffered physical harassment and incurred expenses for approaching the Consumer Fora, we are of the view that ends of justice would meet if the appellant is awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment including litigation costs.  We order accordingly.

10.                       In view of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted partly  and the impugned order is modified to the extent, as specified above. The other part of the order shall remain intact.

11.             Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

12.              File be consigned to the Record Room, after completion.  

 .