View 2941 Cases Against Haryana
Sanjeev Shar,a filed a consumer case on 26 Jun 2024 against Haryana Roadways Depot in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/316/2024 and the judgment uploaded on 26 Jun 2024.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.
Complaint No. 316 of 2024
Date of instt.24.06.2024
Date of Decision 26.06.2024
Sanjeev Sharma Advocate son of Shri Madan Mohan Sharma, resident of Chamber No.710-711, Lawyers Chamber Complex, Karnal.
…….Complainant.
Versus
1. Haryana Roadways Depot, Karnal, through its General Manager.
2. Managing Director, Haryana Roadways, Sector-17C, Chandigarh.
…..Opposite Parties.
Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Before Sh. Jaswant Singh…….…President
Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member
Dr. Suman Singh…………..Member
Present: Shri Narinder Sukhan counsel for complainant.
(Jaswant Singh President)
ORDER:
Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered..
2. The complainant has filed the present complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 10.01.2023, complainant went to Haridwar alongwith his friend and came back from Haridwar to Karnal on 12.01.2023 by Haryana Roadways Bus No.HR45B-4101 and paid Rs.255/- as fair charges. On 07.12.2023, the complainant sought information through RTI application dated 07.12.2023 that what ws the fair from Haridwar to Chutmulpur and Chutmulpur to Karnal and in response, the fair from Haridwar to Chhutmulpur was Rs.92/- and Chhutmulpur to Karnal was Rs.149/-, it means total fair from Haridwar to Karnal was Rs.241/- whereas the complainant was charged Rs.255/-, which shows deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Arguments on the point of admissibility of complaint has been heard.
4. The complainant has alleged that he went from Karnal to Haridwar and came back from Haridwar to Karnal and an amount of Rs.255/- was charged from him as fair but as per information sought by him under RTI Act, the fair from Haridwar to Karnal was Rs.241/-, thus there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
5. The case of the complainant is based upon the information sought by him under RTI Act. By way of RTI application, the complainant has sought the fair from Haridwar to Karnal in two parts i.e. Haridwar to Chhutmulpur and Chhutmulpur to Karnal which was to the tune of Rs.92/- and Rs.149/- respectively as on 12.01.2023.
6. If the complainant was any doubt, he should have sought the fair directly from Haridwar to Karnal and in case there were any difference of amount in the fair which was charged from him by the OPs, then it amounts to the case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs but in the present complaint, the complainant cleverly has sought the fair under RTI Act, in two parts. It is not the case of the complainant that OPs had charged Rs.255/- as fair and issued the tickets of less amount. Generally, the fair of direct buses remains on higher side. The OPs had charged the fair as per the rules/instructions of the Transport Department of Haryana. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
7. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced
Dated: 26.06.2024
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Karnal.
(Vineet Kaushik) (Dr. Suman Singh)
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.