Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/68/2023

ASHOK KUMAR PRAJAPAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS, THROUGH RESPONSIBLES - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 Aug 2023

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

(ADDITIONAL BENCH)

 

 

Appeal No.	:	68 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	20.04.2023
Date of Decision	:	02.08.2023

 

Ashok Kumar Prajapat resident of Village Mohala, District Hissar (Haryana 125042).

   ……Appellant/Complainant.

V e r s u s

The General Manager, Haryana State Transport, Rohtak 124001 through the concerned Bus Driver/responsible officer.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party.

BEFORE:    MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                   MR. RAJESH K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                                                         

Argued by:-

 

Sh. Ashok Kumar Prajapat, appellant in person.

Sh. Anil Kumar, Legal Assistant for the respondent.

 

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 14.02.2023, dismissing his consumer complaint bearing No.40 of 2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission).

1.                 Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant travelled from Chandigarh to Baldev Nagar on 8.2.2019 in bus No. HR46D6352 of Haryana State Transport Rohtak by paying Rs.65/- for the ticket. His grievance was that during the journey, he was given ticket from Chandigarh to Ambala City but this bus did not go to Amabal city and he was dropped at Baldev Nagar due to which he has gone to Amabala City through an Auto by paying    Rs.10/-. It was further stated that an additional fare of Rs.10/- was charged from the complainant against rules. Thereafter, the complainant sent written complaints numerous times in this regard but nothing concrete was done by the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed complaint before the District Commission.

3]                In the reply filed, the Opposite Party while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the Haryana Roadways Buses related to Rohtak Depot plying from Rohtak to Chandigarh and Chandigarh to Rohtak have only two stoppage for arrival and departure of the passengers i.e. Ambala Cantt. Bus Stand and Baldev Nagar and the Rohtak Depot are not used to enter in the Amabala City as there is no stoppage allowed by the transport Department for Amabala City. It was stated that the complainant was issued ticket of Ambala Cantt. Bus Stand on his demand. It was further stated that the Punjab Govt. notification dated 7.2.2019, reducing the fare amount from 117 paise per kilometer to Rs.109 paisa per kilometer, was received in the office of opposite party on 11.2.2019 and in compliance thereto, order dated 12.2.2019 was passed and the fare from Chandigarh to Ambala Cantt. was reduced from Rs.65/- to Rs.60/- whereas the complainant travelled in the Haryana Roadways bus on 8.2.2019, meaning thereby the previous fare list was in existence at that time. The opposite party pleaded no deficiency on its part. 

4]                The appellant has assailed the order basically on two grounds, firstly, that the District Commission has failed to properly appreciate the facts that despite having ticket up-to Ambala City, he was dropped at Baldev Nagar and secondly, it also failed to consider the fact that Notification dated 07.02.2019 was issued a day prior to his journey undertaken on 08.02.2019, therefore, since vide the said notification, there was reduction in fare from Rs.65/- to Rs.60/-, the respondent is liable to refund excess fare of Rs.5/- to him alongwith compensation for mental any and physical harassment.

5]                On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, while reiterating the stand as taken in the written statement filed before the District Commission, it has been argued that the tickets in question, as per the demand of the appellant, were punched at Sr. No.9 of the said tickets, which was only for Ambala Cantt. from Chandigarh because there is no stoppage in the Ambala City for buses of Rohotak Depot, then the question of issuing tickets of Ambala City does not arise. It has been submitted that the appellant if alight from the bus as per his wishes at Baldev Nagar, then the respondent could not stop him to alight from the bus at Baldev Nagar because he had got the tickets up to Ambala Cantt. and Baldev Nagar is stated prior to Ambala Cantt. from Chandigarh. It has been next argued that it is settled law that any compliance of any order/notification would be done from the date of receipt of the same likewise notification dated 07.02.2019 was received in the office on 11.02.2019 and thereafter, vide order dated 12.02.2019, the amount from Chandigarh to Ambala Cantt. was reduced from Rs.65/- to Rs.60/- but on the day of occurrence i.e. 08.02.2019, the previous fare list was in existence. On these grounds and on the basis of reasoning given in the impugned order vide which, the District Commission dismissed the complaint of the appellant, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

6]                We have heard the parties and have gone through the impugned order, complete record and the written arguments very carefully.

7]                As against the first contention raised by the appellant that he was dropped by the respondent at Baldev Nagar instead of Ambala City for which he purchased the ticket, the defence of the respondent was that the complainant purchased ticket from Chandigarh to Ambala Cantt. on the Rohtak Depot bus plying from Rohtak to Chandigarh and Chandigarh to Rohtak, which have only two stoppage for arrival and departure of the passengers i.e. Ambala Cantt. Bus Stand and Baldev Nagar stop and Rohtak depot buses do not enter in the Ambala city as there is no stoppage allowed by the transport Department for Ambala City. In this regard, we are also in conformity with the view held by the District Commission that per document (placed on record at page 9 of the paper-book by the complainant and Annexure R-1 placed on record by the opposite party), it was established that the route of Rohtak-Chandigarh bus is not going through the Amabala city rather it is Ambala Cantt. and Baldev Nagar, if seen, is in reversal, then, the  route of the bus would be through  Baldev Nagar and Ambala Cantt. Moreover the plea of the complainant that he purchased the ticket for Ambala city does not fortify on record even the ticket placed on record does not show anything to that effect. Therefore, the grievance of the appellant that he was not dropped at Ambala City despite purchase of ticket for the same being falsified, was rightly rejected by the District Commission.

8]                Now coming to the next contention of the appellant that despite issuance of notification dated 07.02.2019 reducing the bus fare by Rs.5/- for the journey from Chandigarh to Ambala Cantt., he was charged excess fare, we find sufficient force in this contention of his for the simple reason that no doubt, the copy of notification was received by the respondent subsequently on 11.02.2019 and order was passed by it on 12.02.2019 reducing the fare from Rs.65/- to Rs.60/-, however, bare perusal of this very notification transpires as per Para 2 of this notification, it was to come into force with immediate effect. Para 2 of the notification, being relevant is extracted hereunder:-

“2.     This notification will be come into force with immediate effect.”

As such, receiving copy of notification subsequently or passing of order reducing fare and freights in compliance thereto, cannot override the enforcement of Clause 2 of the notification, as per which, the notification had come into force with immediate effect, making the appellant entitled for refund of the excess fare of Rs.5/-, which the respondent charged from him on 08.02.2019 i.e. a day after issuance of the notification. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the complaint on this score by the District Commission was not justified. The appellant is very much held entitled for refund of the excess amount of fare of Rs.5/-, which the respondent had charged. He is also held for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered due to deficiency in rendering service on account of excess charging of bus fare. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set aside.

9]                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent/opposite party is directed as under:-

(i)       to refund an amount of Rs.5/- to the appellant/complainant, which it charged in excess towards bus fare.

(ii)      to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and costs of litigation.

(iii)         This order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of thereof, failing which, the respondent/opposite party  shall pay  interest @9% p.a. on the entire amounts aforesaid from the date of passing of this order, till realization.

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

11]              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

02.08.2023

 

 [PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

 [RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

 

Ad