JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant Ashok Kumar Prajapat against the impugned Order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in F.A. No. 696 of 2019, vide which, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was partly allowed, and the Order of the Ld. District Forum was set-aside. 2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant travelled on the Haryana State Transport Department's Chandigarh Depot Bus on 17.05.2015, from Zirakpur (Punjab) to Ambala Cantt., paying a fare of Rs. 40/-. During the journey, the bus driver began smoking a bidi near Baldev Nagar (Ambala City), causing discomfort to the Complainant. When the Complainant requested the driver to stop smoking, citing the ban on smoking in public places and transport, the driver disregarded the request and finished smoking the bidi before discarding it. The Complainant then approached the Conductor, seeking assistance, but received no cooperation. The Conductor dismissed the concern, stating the driver's age and downplaying the incident. Following the journey, on 17.05.2015, the Complainant filed a complaint with the General Manager of the Haryana State Transport Department in Ambala, detailing the incident and requesting departmental action against the driver. A subsequent complaint was filed on 06.07.2016 regarding the same issue. In response to these complaints, the Complainant was informed via a letter dated 28.12.2016 from the Haryana State Transport Department in Chandigarh. The letter indicated that the bus driver had been fined Rs. 200/- under the COTP Act, 2003, and that both the Driver and Conductor had been served a Charge Sheet under the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. Additionally, the letter stated that the fare charged was in accordance with the Fare Table applicable on 17.05.2015. Feeling aggrieved by the misconduct and the apparent disregard for regulations, the Complainant lodged a formal complaint before the Ld. District Forum in S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. 3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 17.07.2019 dismissed the Complaint. The Petitioner filed his Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which, vide the impugned Order dated 14.12.2020 partly allowed the Appeal and set-aside the Order of the Ld. District Forum. The Ld. State Commission directed the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to pay a token amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and litigation costs and dismissed the complaint against Respondent No. 3. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below – “14. The appellant/complainant has prayed in his complaint action against the driver and conductor of bus and return of excess fare in addition to the compensation. In this case, it is noted that the complainant has not impleaded the bus driver and conductor who smoked and misbehaved with him. In the absence of impleadment of the bus driver/conductor, it would not be fair and reasonable to take view on the allegations made by the complainant against them. We cannot pass any order without hearing on the back of the parties. 15. The other issue prayed by the complainant is of excess bus fare charged by the conductor. The complainant has travelled from Zirakpur to Ambala Cantt for a distance of about 38 kms. Measure as per survey report dated 04.05.2018. The respondents/opposite parties in their arguments before the District Commission has stated that fare has been charged Rs. 40/- as per the fare chart prepared by the department placed at Ex.OP-10, Ex.OP-11 and Ex.OP-13. However, the complainant in his arguments before the District Commission challenged the calculation of fare in accordance with kilometre charges fixed by States of Punjab and Haryana as 0.90 per km. and 0.75 km. respectively. Also as per notification of the Punjab Government dated 28.04.2015, it has been provided in Note-1 as “Provided that in case where the charging of fare involves fraction of Rs. 2.50 and above it may be rounded off to Rs. 5.00 and the fraction of less than 2.50 rupees may be ignored. Minimum fare shall be charged at the rate ten rupees.” 16. As per calculation in accordance with the above notification fare for ordinary bus journey from Zirakpur to Ambala Cantt has been worked for Rs. 35/-. The opposite parties have not rebutted to these calculation in their written arguments filed before this Commission in the appeal. Charging more than the fare fixed as per Govt. Notification from a consumer constitutes unfair trade practice. 17. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed against respondents No. 1 &2/opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and dismissed qua respondent No.3/opposite parties No. 3. The respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to pay a token amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and litigation costs to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receiving of the certified copy of the order. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 18. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 01.12.2020 and the order was reserved. The certified copies of the orders be communicated to the parties, as per rules. 19. This appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.” 4. Petitioner appearing in-person reiterated the facts and contentions he had pleaded before the Ld. District Forum and Ld. State Commission during the course of arguments. 5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 3 has argued that the Ld. State Commission rightly held that the Respondent No. 3/ Health Department, Haryana did not provide any services for any consideration to the Petitioner and therefore the Petitioner was not a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act; That the Respondent No. 3 is not a necessary party in this Petition as no cause of action arises against them and they have been wrongly impleaded. The Respondent No. 3 is merely a Statutory Authority which is providing health facility in the State of Haryana; That the Petitioner has not come before this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and concealed the material facts to achieve his ulterior motive to cause wrongful loss to the Respondent. 6. This Commission has heard both the Petitioner in-person and the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, and perused the material available on record. 7. The central question in the present Petition pertains to whether the Petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of alleged deficiency on service on the part of the Respondents. The Petitioner appearing in person argued that he was wrongfully charged Rs. 5/- extra for the journey that he undertook, as also the hazard of health that he had to undergo on account of tobacco smoking by the Driver of the Respondent No.1and 2. The Petitioner has filed several Complaints/Appeals/Petitions against the Respondents before various Lower Fora, as also in this Commission. A Coordinate Bench of this Commission in Director General, State Transport, Haryana & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar Prajapat, Revision Petition No. 567 of 2022 (along with connected matters) in its Order dated 04.10.2023 had allowed the Revision Petition in favour of the Petitioner herein, directing the Director General, State Transport, Haryana to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the Petition thereunder as also Rs. 3,000/- as costs of litigation in each Petition. The relevant extracts of the Order dated 04.10.2023 are set out as below – “12. In view of the above, we are of the view that the State Commission’s order needs modification. Accordingly, all the Revision Petitions covered under this order are disposed of with following directions: (a) OP-1/Petitioner herein shall take all appropriate actions within two months of this order to ensure the removal of deficiency in service i.e. menace of smoking by drivers/conductors/co-passengers in buses run by it, failing which, it shall be liable for penal action(s) under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. b) OP-1/Petitioner herein shall pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- in each case i.e. a total of Rs.70,000/- along with cost of Rs.3,000/- in each case i.e. Rs.21,000/- in total for the seven Revision Petitions, within one month of this order. (c) In case OP-1/Petitioner fails to pay the amount as per this order within one month, it shall carry interest @9% per annum.” 8. In the present Petition, the subject matter and the grievances of the Petitioner are almost identical to that of the above mentioned Petitions, vis-a-vis the illegal act of smoking in a Public Transport as well as the act of unduly charging Rs. 5/- extra for the journey; The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 has contended that the Health Department is merely a Statutory Authority of the Government of Haryana providing health services, and that the Petitioner is not the ‘Consumer’ of Respondent No. 3 as neither any consideration amount was received nor any service was provided to the Petitioner. This Commission is of the considered opinion that this contention has merit, as the Respondent No. 3 only provides health services to the public at large through Hospitals/Clinics/Health Centres and also regulates the health sector in the State. The Health Department cannot be faulted for shortcomings of the Transport Department, although they may run campaigns highlighting the harms of tobacco smoking, especially in public places and spreading awareness regarding the legal provisions barring smoking in public. 9. The Petitioner had availed the services of the Haryana Transport Department when he had purchased the ticket for his journey and also when he travelled in the Bus on the basis of the ticket. The Public Transport Bus is under the purview of the Respondents No. 1 & 2, and any act of deficiency of service and/or unfair trade practice with regard to the same would make the officials of the Respondents No. 1 & 2 liable to the consequences under the appropriate laws. On the basis of the records and documents placed before this Commission, it is observed that the Transport Department had taken action on the offending driver by imposing a fine of Rs. 200/- on him as well as taking action against the Driver and Conductor under the Service Rules. The incident of smoking by their employee being an admitted fact, they cannot take a contrary stand elsewhere that there was no deficiency of service on their part. Smoking in public is a widespread issue which is also banned by virtue of several Statutes; nevertheless, a Govt. employee especially of a Public Transport has greater responsibility of adhering to the law and public health. The act of tobacco smoking in a confined space such as a Bus is not only hazardous to the health of the passengers travelling in it but it also puts the safety of the passengers in jeopardy as the burning remnants/bidi can lead to fire onboard the Bus. The Respondents No. 1 & 2, being the controlling Authority of the Bus in which the Petitioner undertook his journey, are responsible for the actions of their employees and are therefore guilty of providing deficient service. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Order of the Ld. State Commission dated 14.12.2020 is modified to the extent that the amount that was awarded under the impugned Order at Para 17 is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. 11. This Revision Petition is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous. | 
