Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/821/2010

Surjeet Kumar S/o Satpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager,Haryana Roadways . - Opp.Party(s)

26 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                                Complaint No..821 of 2010.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 1.9.2010

                                                                                                Date of decision: 26.8.2015.

Surjeet Kumar son of Sh. Satpal, resident of village Garhi Kotaha, Tehsil and district Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                           …opposite party.

 

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C. SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. M.C.Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Sh. Lal Chand Sub Inspector representative for OP.              

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Surjeet Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, as amended up to date,  praying therein that OP be directed to refund Rs. 100/- which were charged illegally from the complainant and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and humiliation and Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation.  

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant are that on 13.7.2010, the complainant had to come from Yamuna Nagar to Naraingarh for coming to his village Gari Kotaha District Panchkula and he boarded on Haryana Roways bus bearing No. 9028 from Yamuna Nagar but as the said bus was not going via Naraingarh, therefore, the complainant took ticket from Yamuna Nagar to Sadhaura and paid Rs. 18./- as fare. The said bus drop the complainant at Sadhuara at about 3.30 P.M. and thereafter complainant boarded in another Haryana Roadways Yamuna Nagar depot bus bearing No. HR-58-8972 from Sadhaura to Naraingarh and took a ticket for that and paid Rs. 16/- as fare. When the abovesaid bus reached near Kala Amb, it was stopped by an inspector  of the opposite party for checking the tickets. The complainant showed his tickets to the said inspector from Sadhaura to Naraingarh and told him that he has boarded the bus from Sadhaura and took the ticket from Sadhaura to Naraingarh but the Inspector insisted that the complainant has boarded in the bus from Yamuna Nagar and has not taken the tickets and told that penalty would be imposed upon the complainant for not taking ticket from Yamuna Nagar. The complainant shown the tickets to the said inspector which were taken by him from Yamuna Nagar to Sadhaura in another bus and from Sadhaura to Naraingarh of bus No. HR-58-8972 but the said inspector threatened the complainant either to pay Rs. 100/- as penalty or he will get register a case in the police station and just from avoding the harassment he paid Rs. 100/- to the inspector vide receipt No.27 dated 13.7.2010. The inspector of the OP’s has charged Rs. 100/- from the complainant without any reason. Thus, the opposite party is indulging in unfair trade practice and there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties as the complainant has not impleaded the conductors and inspectors of the bus as necessary parties to the complaint, the complainant has suppressed the real and material facts, complaint of the complainant is false and concocted and on merit it has been mentioned that the actual facts of the case are that the bus bearing No. HR-58-8972 was inspected by the inspectors of the bus at Kala Amb. At that time, the complainant was not having any proper ticket from Sadhaura to Naraingarh and due to non production of the ticket, the inspectorate staff imposed a penalty of 10 time’s from Sadhaura to Kala Amb and charged Rs. 100/- i.e. Rs. 10/- as actual fare and Rs. 90/- as penalty as shown in the copy of receipt Annexure R-1. It has been further mentioned that complainant has concocted a false and frivolous story. The complainant himself proves his false story in the complaint by showing the receipt of 10 times, in the receipt the actual fare is shown as Rs. 10/- and the penalty is shown as Rs.90/-. The fare from Sadhaura to Kala Amb was Rs. 10/- and thus Rs. 100/- were charged from the complainant as 10 times of the actual fare. Moreover, the fare from Yamuna Nagar to Sadhaura was Rs. 18/- and if we believe the version of the complainant then the inspector of the depot might have imposed penalty of Rs. 180/- but the penalty was imposed only Rs. 100/-. It has been further mentioned that as the complainant was not having any proper tickets at the time of inspection of this bus but he has managed the tickets later on some how, best reasons known to him because if the complainant would have proper tickets at the time of inspection, no penalty was ever imposed on the complainant and the tickets must be torn. The tickets Annexed herewith Annexure C-1 to C-4 shows tht the tickets are in intact position i.e. tickets are not torn. Lastly, prayed that all this clearly shows that present complaint is filed on false and frivolous ground and facts mentioned in the complaint are far away from the truth. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP and the present complaint deserves to be dismissal with special costs.

4.                     To prove his case, counsel for the complainant tendered the affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Annexure C-1 & C-2 Photo copies of bus tickets from Yamuna Nagar to Sadhaura, Annexure C-3 & C-4 Photo copies of bus tickets from Sadhaura to Naraingarh and Annexure C-5 Photo copy of receipt of penalty dated 13.7.2010 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, Sh. Lal Chand, Sub Inspector, Haryana Roadways Depot, Yamuna Nagar of Traffic Branch tendered his affidavit as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that the official of the OP has illegally charged Rs. 100/- from the complainant whereas the complainant was having proper ticket from Sadhaura to Naraingarh which is annexure C-3 and C-4.

8.                     On the other hand, representative of the OP submitted that the version of the complainant is totally false and frivolous just to harass and humiliate the OP. In fact the complainant was not having any ticket from Sadhaura to Naraingarh and hence a sum of Rs. 100/- has been legally charged as 10 times penalty of the actual fare of Rs. 10/- from the complainant. He further submitted complainant has totally failed to explain or disclose any ill-will or enmity between the complainant and checking staff. It has been further submitted that the bus tickets which have been placed as Annexure C-1 to C-4 can be easily managed from other passengers of that day. If the complainant would have proper tickets at the time of inspection, no penalty was ever imposed on the complainant and the tickets must be torn whereas the tickets annexures C-1 to C-4 are intact.

9.                     From the perusal of Anenxure C-5, it is clear that Rs. 10/- as actual fare and Rs. 90/- as penalty i.e. total Rs. 100/- has been charged vide this receipt. However, no name, address of the complainant is mentioned in this receipt. The counsel for the complainant totally failed to convince this Forum that there was any grude between the complainant or the inspectorate staff or the checking staff was having any ill will towards the complainant. Without any reason, it is not digestible why any government official will do wrong act or harass the complainant especially in the presence of so many passengers travelling in the bus. Further counsel for the complainant has totally failed to explain in what manner there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP. 

10.                   In view of the abovesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case, hence the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court: 26.8.2015.

 

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        (S.C. SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.