BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:38 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 01.03.2017.
Date of Decision: 09.09.2019.
Prabhu Singh son of Bahadur Singh 100 % disabled resident of village Sungarpur District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Conductor Haryana Roadways No.HR61B7180 dated 25.01.2017 at about 9 A.M. Bhiwani Depot departure from Loharu to Jhunjunu.
- Transport Commissioner, Haryana Chandigarh.
...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Nagender Singh, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Narender Singh Conductor on behalf of Op No.1.
Op No.2 exparte.
ORDER:-
PER NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he being 100 % disabled person has been permitted for free travelling in the buses of State Government vide letter No.851-67/CA5/C dated 08.03.1991 issued by Op No.2. On 25.01.2017, the conductor of Haryana Roadways bus No.HR61B-7180 has not provided this facility to the complainant. The bus fare from Loharu to Jhunjunu is Rs.75/- but Op No.1 had charged Rs.125/-. It has been further averred that initially the complainant was issued bus pass No.407 dated 20.10.1997 and now he has been issued bus pass No.62 dated 15.02.2017 by Bhiwani depot and the Op no.2 has not mentioned any other rule in the free travelling passes issued to the disabled person. The Op No.1 has not complied with the rules issued for the disabled persons and he has taken out more fare than the fixed fare from the pocket of complainant resulting into mental agony and harassment to the complainant. It has been further averred that the complainant has made complaint to the Transport Commissioner against the conductor of the said bus the same was disposed of with undue favour of the conductor. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. The complainant has not led any evidence.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed its reply wherein preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, locus stnadi, non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of material facts etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that as per order dated 08.03.1991 issued by Transport Commissioner, Haryana, 100 % disabled have been granted facility of free travelling in the State government buses but this facility is provided up to the jurisdiction of Haryana only vide letter No.19-2-2006-2T(II) dated 30.05.2007 endorsement No.3292-3311/A2 ACC dated 06.06.2007. It has been further submitted that the complainant had to go to Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) from Loharu (Haryana), therefore, he was not entitled for the said facility, therefore, fare of Rs.75/- was charged from him. The Op No.1 has complied with the rules issued by the Haryana Government and there is no deficiency and unfair trade practice on its part. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Op No.1 has tendered document Annexure R1.
3. Summons sent to Op No.2 through registered post but none had turned up on behalf of Op No.2 even after lapsing of mandatory period, therefore, Op no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.05.2017.
4. We have heard the complainant as well as Op No.1 at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
5.
In the present complaint an application was filed on 03.01.2019 by the complainant with the request that he is unable to attend the Forum on each and every date due to his disability and in support thereof he has placed on record certain documents and medical records. All the documents produced by the complainant have been perused. Undisputedly, the complainant is 100 % disabled person and as per order dated 08.03.1991 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, every 100 % disabled person has been granted free travelling facility in the buses of State Government. The Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that this facility was provided in the jurisdiction of Haryana only and in this regard he drew the attention of this Forum towards Annexure R1 wherein it has been mentioned that Sanction is hereby accorded to the grant of free travelling facility to one person accompanying with the 100 % handicapped persons in Haryana Roadways Ordinary buses. This facility is provided in the jurisdiction of Haryana only. Undisputedly, the complainant had to travel to Jhunjunu (Rajasthan) from Loharu (Haryana), therefore, the Op No.1 has rightly charged the fare for the journey as it was from Loharu (Haryana) to Jhunjunu (Rajasthan), which is beyond the jurisdiction of State of Haryana. It is also not disputed that the fare from Loharu (Haryana) to Jhunjunu (Rajasthan) was Rs.75/- but the complainant has come with the plea that Rs.125/- has been charged from him but the tickets produced by the complainant on the case file are having different serial numbers, therefore, this version of the complainant is also not believable. Undoubtedly, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are benevolent in nature but it does not give any liberty to the person who wants to take un-due advantage of the same.
6. Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 09.09.2019.
(Parmod Kumar) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
